adidas unethical case study

The Dark Side of Adidas: 8 Unethical Practices and Controversies

Climate Real Talk Team

August 15, 2023

Affiliate Disclosure : As an Amazon Associate, we earn a commission on qualifying purchases if you purchase a product through a link on our website at no extra cost to you. Thank you.

Article Content

Adidas, a renowned sports brand, has engaged in unethical acts including forced labor, environmental harm, and racism. Join to uncover the dark side of adidas.

Do you remember how much fun it was to show off our athletic skills and sportswear on the field during the sports day in school? Growing up, we always saw Adidas as a go-to brand for sporting events and other occasions.

To no one’s surprise, this famous label has long been the preferred option of sportspeople and athletes everywhere. Adidas has a particular place in our hearts and closets because of its legendary three-stripe emblem, which has come to represent excellence and performance.

Despite its reputation for progress and creativity, Adidas has several unethical practices and controversies, just like a lot of big brands have unethical practices . The company’s ethical standing and social responsibilities have come under fire throughout the years from various stakeholders.

These scandals have damaged the company’s image and prompted vital discussions about the accountability of modern multinational corporations. In this article, we will look at the dark side of this brand while exploring the controversies and unethical practices of Adidas.

The Dark Side of Adidas Practices of Adidas

Some of the unethical practices of Adidas people have called out include:

1. Labor Exploitation

Labour exploitation has been a significant dark side Adidas, particularly in its supply chain, which frequently includes facilities in underdeveloped countries. Some of these factories have been labelled “sweatshops,” a derogatory term for the inhumane working conditions and excessively long hours.

The exploitation of child labour is one of the most upsetting accusations against Adidas and other athletic businesses. Child labour is a serious violation of human rights, and critics have accused Adidas of having its supplier companies hire people too young to work.

Exploiters mainly target children, forcing them to work in hazardous conditions instead of attending school. There have been reports of minors as young as 14 working in supplier factories in countries like Bangladesh and Cambodia that produce Adidas goods.

Although Adidas claims to have stringent labour standards and regulations against child labour, monitoring and enforcing compliance across its extensive supply chain has proved challenging.

Additionally, rumours have been circulating that Adidas uses children as young as 10 to produce their goods in factories.

Additionally, there have yet to be any reported efforts by Adidas to provide a decent wage to its employees. Some workers in supplier factories have complained that their pay is too low to allow them to provide adequately for themselves and their families. This means the factory workers (mainly women) who spend all day creating $100 shoes are underpaid.

People have also accused some Adidas factories have also made it hard for workers to form unions or participate in collective bargaining. This makes it harder for workers to share their concerns and improve working conditions. Such actions keep people in a cycle of poverty and exploitation , which raises questions about the company’s sense of social duty and dedication to doing business ethically.

Critics have also condemned Adidas for conducting business in countries with bad records on human rights. Several reports and investigations linked some global companies, including Adidas, to factories in Xinjiang that reportedly use forced labour from the Uyghur minority. These unethical practices of Adidas all contribute to a gross violation of human rights.

2. Environmental Impact

As a result of these emissions, global warming, harsh weather, and rising sea levels are more likely to occur. It’s important to note that the production and dyeing procedures at Adidas contribute to water contamination, which threatens ecosystems and populations that rely on clean water.

Additionally, fabric scraps, packaging materials, and unsold stock all contribute to the garbage the brand produces when making sportswear. Another major problem in the sportswear industry is the use of harmful chemicals in manufacturing.

Adidas has been accused of using hazardous chemicals harmful to workers, customers, and the environment in their goods and manufacturing processes.

Some environmentalists have accused the corporation of greenwashing, saying its sustainability activities are insufficient to address its overall environmental effect.

By 2050, the company aim to reach carbon neutrality . Since 2017, they have lowered their CO2 output by 26% and water output by 21%. While Adidas’s goal to cut greenhouse gases from its operations and supply chain is commendable, the company still needs to be on track to achieve it. 

Also, Adidas does take minimal action to curb deforestation by not using raw materials from species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

However, it only goes so far as to publish its own rules on the matter, especially concerning materials associated with deforestation, like leather. It is easier for stakeholders to hold the brand accountable for its sustainability commitments with sufficient information.

3. Animal Right Issues

Another unethical practice of Adidas that has come under scrutiny is its violation of animal rights. The sustainability of their leather supply for shoes and other items is a significant concern.

Using down feathers for insulation in outerwear and sportswear is usual. Due to this, concerns about using down from birds that were live-plucked or force-fed have prompted calls for more transparent practices and certifications.

Due to practices including factory farming and insufficient living circumstances, the leather business is notorious for harming animal welfare. Animal rights advocates claim that Adidas sources its leather from companies that exploit animals or damage the environment.

The company has recently rejected claims that it sells kangaroo leather products in California, where such sales are illegal. Furthermore, critics have accused the company of not being transparent regarding its supply chain sourcing methods.

4. Exploitative Marketing and Endorsements

Exploitative marketing and endorsements are unethical ways companies like Adidas promote their goods or services by using weak people or groups as guinea pigs. These strategies often use deceptive methods that play on consumers’ feelings, lack of knowledge, or personal weaknesses.

Many have called out Adidas for its marketing efforts that target groups like women of colour People have also said that the company uses social or cultural trends for marketing without backing the causes or values they say they stand for.

This “cause-washing” can make people lose faith in a brand because they feel its fake actions tricked them. For example, the company has come under fire for a recent campaign where it posted graphic images of women’s breasts online.

5. Corruption and Bribery Allegations

Another unethical practice of Adidas that received backlash is the brand’s involvement in corruption and bribery scandals. In 2017, the FBI in the United States revealed a vast corruption plot in college basketball involving several major apparel corporations, including Adidas.

Allegedly, executives and staff of Adidas paid bribes to high school basketball players and their families to influence them to enroll at universities that Adidas sponsored.

The money was supposed to buy their allegiance to the brand and control any future endorsement deals they made as professionals. As a result of the controversy, several Adidas employees were arrested and charged with fraud and corruption.

Also, in 2021, the French government began investigating Adidas because of bribery and corruption claims. The investigation was based on the suspicion that Adidas may have done something illegal in France while doing business there.

Adidas was also involved in a racism scandal after its workers exposed the company’s racial discrimination.

Employees from around the world at Adidas signed a statement calling for an investigation into the company’s head of HR, Karen Parkin.

These employees see her as a significant contributor to the issue. These employees also noted that Karen Parkin regarded the complaints made as noise . However, Adidas later fired her.

7. Celebrity and Athlete Sponsorships Controversies

Another unethical practice of Adidas that has been criticized is its choice of celebrity and athlete sponsorships. Some of Adidas’ endorsement deals with athletes and celebrities have been the subject of criticism and ethical concerns.

Adidas has had a long-running marketing deal with Tiger Woods, a famous golfer, in the past. However, in 2009, Woods became involved in a public incident involving infidelity, which damaged his reputation.

Many people felt that Adidas should have broken ties with Tiger Woods because of his inappropriate behaviour, but the company kept its sponsorship despite the criticism.

The court indicted several high-ranking FIFA officials on corruption accusation in 2015, and one of the biggest sponsors of FIFA and the World Cup was Adidas. The controversy tarnished the sportswear company’s reputation because of its ties to a governing body under scrutiny for alleged corruption.

Many activists attacked the company for not taking a stronger position against corruption in football. Additionally, despite the organization’s involvement in questionable practices, Adidas was criticized for continuing its sponsorship of FIFA.

Also, most people know that Adidas and Kanye West worked together to make the famous Yeezy shoe line. While the partnership gave both parties commercial success, it suffered from criticism of Kanye West’s aggressive political ideas and social media outbursts.

Some customers wanted Adidas to cut connections with Kanye West because of his controversial actions. While the company cut ties with the brand in October 2022, it has plans to sell a second batch of Yeezy shoes.

Also, Mary Cain, a former professional runner sponsored by Adidas, has made severe charges of emotional and physical abuse against her former coach and Nike Oregon.

Although Adidas was not directly involved, the scandal did bring up concerns about the duty of sportswear companies to protect the well-being of sponsored athletes. It also raised concerns about the brand’s responsibility to promote ethical practices within its partner organizations.

8. Impact on Local Communities

Adidas has been involved in several scandals that have had far-reaching consequences for the neighbourhoods where the firm has a presence. The unethical practices of Adidas illustrate how a company’s operations can have far-reaching implications for the local communities that host its facilities and retail outlets.

The company has shut down several factories to save money or relocate production to more affordable regions. Local workers have lost their jobs due to these shutdowns, and many of them are now without steady employment and must find ways to make ends meet.

There have been incidents of economic decline, increasing poverty, and diminished possibilities in areas that relied mainly on these enterprises for employment. There have been demonstrations and public scrutiny of Adidas supplier facilities because of reports of bad working conditions, low wages, and labour rights violations.

These problems have severely impacted local communities because they have forced workers. Additionally, most of these workers come from low-income households and put up with unsafe conditions and low wages.

The growth of Adidas retail and corporate facilities in some neighbourhoods could cause gentrification and force out long-time residents and local businesses. The presence of a well-known name in the area can raise property prices and the standard of living for existing inhabitants.

However, this would be at the expense of middle-class families and local businesses.

The sportswear company has also come under fire for appropriating indigenous symbols and designs without compensating their original creators. Such measures can push marginalized groups further into the background and risk cultural extinction.

Click here if you want to learn more about the unethical practices of Adidas.

Adidas’s unethical practices have stained the company’s otherwise stellar reputation as a leader in the sportswear industry. Despite its worldwide success, many have accused the company of violating workers’ rights, damaging the environment, and being involved in unethical practices.

Adidas joined several initiatives promoting sustainable practices, implemented labour monitoring programs, and increased transparency to address these issues. However, critics argue that more urgent measures are needed to address the systemic problems within the company’s supply chain.

In this regard, Adidas’s shadowy side serves as a reminder of the importance of companies balancing ethical principles with the drive to maximize profits and expand their operations.

Related posts:

• Recent Posts

• Harnessing the Power of the Sun: A Guide to Solar Installation - February 12, 2024
• Vacuum Trucks: The Unseen Heroes of Waste Management and Their Environmental Benefits, Featuring McDonald Farms - December 11, 2023
• Satellites And Climate Adaptation: Solutions From Space - December 1, 2023

2 thoughts on “The Dark Side of Adidas: 8 Unethical Practices and Controversies”

• Pingback: Climate Change Policies In USA: A 2023 Review
• Pingback: Adidas Problems and their Relationship with Consumers

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

most recent

Eco Products

Harnessing the power of the sun: a guide to solar installation.

389 Adjectives Starting with Z (Positive Words and Others)

389 Adjectives Starting with Y (Positive words and Others)

389 Adjectives Starting with X (Positive words and Others)

389 Adjectives Starting with V (Positive words and Others)

389 Adjectives Starting with U (Positive Words and Others

Climate Real Talk

For Sponsorship opportunities, kindly reach out to us through our email on the  contact us page

© 2024 Climaterealtalk.org

• National News
• Public safety
• Entertainment

The Dark Side of Adidas: Unethical Practices and Controversies

Adidas has been criticized for its use of sweatshop labor in factories around the world. Workers have reported being paid low wages, working in unsafe conditions, and being subjected to verbal and physical abuse. In 2017, the company was accused of failing to address these issues, despite years of promises to improve working conditions.

The company has also faced backlash for its support of controversial athletes. In 2018, Adidas faced calls to drop rapper Kanye West as a brand ambassador after he made controversial comments about slavery. The company also faced criticism for sponsoring footballer Luis Suarez, who has been accused of racially abusing an opponent.

Adidas has also been accused of failing to address human rights violations in its supply chain. The company has been linked to the use of forced labor in its factories in Asia, and has been accused of turning a blind eye to labor abuses in its supply chain. In 2020, the company was accused of sourcing cotton from Xinjiang, where the Chinese government has been accused of committing human rights violations against the Uyghur population.

In addition to these issues, Adidas has also been criticized for its environmental impact. The company has been accused of contributing to pollution and climate change, and has been slow to adopt sustainable practices. The company has also been criticized for its lack of transparency around its environmental impact and its supply chain.

Overall, Adidas’ negative issues have had a significant impact on its reputation and brand image. The company has faced boycotts, protests, and lawsuits as a result of these controversies. While the company has taken steps to address some of these issues, including launching a sustainability initiative and committing to ethical sourcing, it remains to be seen whether these efforts will be enough to restore consumer trust in the brand.

A Closer Look at Deutsche Bank’s Troubling History

Egg-cellent cooking: how to perfectly cook eggs every time.

I strive to offer expert analysis and valuable insights to help readers navigate the complex world of finance.

PRESSREELS is a future-oriented entertainment lifestyle brand that provides various content while being a media platform covering the United States and the United Kingdom.

A Part of VARIETY M&P International UK © 2021 VARIETY M&P International UK . All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement and Your California Privacy Rights. PRESSREELS.com may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached, or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of VARIETY M&P International UK. Ad Choices

A Part of Saint Modern Communication © 2021 Saint Modern Communication . All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement and Your California Privacy Rights. PRESSREELS.com may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached, or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Saint Modern Communication. Ad Choices

© 2017 – 2023 PRESSREELS.COM Magazine. All Rights Reserved.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Remember Me

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Please Enable JavaScript in your Browser to Visit this Site.

Copyright notice..

All Rights Reserved.

All material appearing on the PRESSREELS website ("content") is protected by copyright under U.S. Copyright laws and is the property of PRESSREELS. You may not copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, display, perform, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any such content, nor may you distribute any part of this content over any network, including a local area network, sell or offer it for sale, or use such content to construct any kind of database.

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access Only $1 for 4 weeks

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Premium Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Child labour scandal hits Adidas

Brutality, poor wages and 15-hour days in the Asian sweatshops

They are the ultimate status symbols for sports stars and street-conscious young people. With their trademark three stripes, Adidas clothes cost a small fortune to buy and are promoted by world-famous names such as England skipper David Beckham, Olympic heptathlete Denise Lewis and Russian tennis player Anna Kournikova.

But the company will this week become embroiled in controversy when the European Parliament hears of the barbaric treatment of employees in Indonesian sweatshop factories supplying the German conglomerate.

The Parliament will be told that clothes for Adidas were made in two factories using child labour, forced overtime and sexual harassment. Representatives of workers in two Indonesian factories supplying the German company,will tell Euro MPs that in the Nikomax Gemilang and Tuntex factories, in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, children as young as 15 were:

made to work 15-hour days;

expected to do at least 70 hours a week and punished for refusing to do overtime;

paid less than $60 a month, rates below the International Labour Organisation's demand for a living wage;

penalised for taking leave during medical difficulties and had illegal deductions taken from wages as punishments for minor misdemeanours.

Sports goods companies have been criticised for exploiting workers in the developing world before. There was a storm just before the 1998 World Cup, after footballs bearing the Manchester United club crest were being made by child labourers in India, working for as little as 6p an hour. Cricket ball manufacturers were also criticised.

A report by Christian Aid revealed that children, some as young as seven, were regularly used in the production of a wide range of sports goods in India. Most of the £13m worth of goods went to Britain.

Last year a worker from a Bangkok factory for Adidas claimed that for less than £1 per day she worked 12-hour shifts seven days a week, producing sportswear, shoes and replica kits for the company.

She claimed conditions were poor in the Thai factory and the management acted brutally to meet large orders within a limited time, often denying workers statutory rights such as holidays and sick pay. The accusations are similar to those made by the Indonesian workers.

The woman was eventually sacked in 1998 along with 23 others after they formed a union in an attempt to win more rights. The factory management claimed she was a disruptive influence.

Most Adidas goods are produced in Third World countries, particularly Asia, with orders awarded to locally run factories. Many orders are sub-contracted at local level, leading to claims that the companies have little idea of where and how their goods are produced.

Adidas denies ignoring workers' rights for the sake of profit, claiming they have strict labour codes and constantly monitoring wage levels and conditions to ensure a good working environment.

Adidas spokesman Peter Csanadi countered the allegations earlier this year: 'We have factories where the conditions are very good and we take this whole issue very seriously,' he said. 'We know we have had problems, and we had to terminate some contracts because we saw that the management were not interested in good working conditions.

'We work closely with factory management and demand that they ensure good conditions for workers. We also have a team of our own people who go to factories to sort out problems.'

Adidas, whose football shirts sell in a British high street store for more than £50, have admitted problems at the two Indonesian factories and have recently increased pay and taken steps to ease overtime demands. Copies of the labourers' identity cards are now held at the Nikomas factory to ensure that no under-18s work there.

The company admitted that at the Tuntex plant quotas were set too high. Workers complained of being fined for coming to work five minutes late. Adidas confirmed that women who took leave when menstruating, as legally entitled, lost an attendance bonus of 6,000 Rupiah (50p) and that a manager had been sacked for sexual harassment.

Pay at the Nikomas plant was increased to more than 9,000 Rs (75p per day) following the campaigners complaints, Adidas said.

The campaigners hope that the publicity surrounding the hearings next week will force states to become involved in the regulatory process.

Ingborg Wick, who oversaw much of the research, said yesterday that government involvement was crucial.

'There has to be some overview of voluntary codes that companies sign with campaigners. There also needs to be an institutional framework and legal monitoring to ensure social standards in Third World production,' she said.

The hearings - by the European Parliament's Development Committee - have been organised by Richard Howitt, the British MEP.

[email protected]

• The Observer
• Child labour

Most viewed

• Manage Account

Adidas’ Counterfeit Claims Land Federal Court I.P. Review

By Michael McCann

Michael McCann

Legal Analyst and Senior Sports Legal Reporter

• + additional share options added

Adidas is suing 83 websites that the footwear and apparel giant accuses of selling counterfeit and infringing versions of Adidas products. It is the latest example of a major brand turning to the law to stop the proliferation of fake products that damage the brand’s name and goodwill.

The websites named in the complaint attempt to give the appearance of being legitimate Adidas websites. One repeatedly uses the Adidas logo and offers company statements, such as a note that “The adidas brand has a long history and deep-rooted connection with sport … and [has] become recognized, credible, and iconic brands both on and off the field of play.” At the same time, the websites market what they contend are Adidas footwear but at heavily discounted prices. For example, one website sells counterfeit Kaptir Super Shoes for $22.50;  at Adidas.com they sell for $90.

Adidas also points out that counterfeit sales negatively impact its endorsers and partners. The complaint references the company’s “long-term relationships” with universities as well as with celebrity athletes such as James Harden, Trae Young, Patrick Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers, David Beckman, Lionel Messi and P.K. Subban. The impact is apparent when canvassing the defendants’ websites. One sells a counterfeit Harden Vol. 5 Futurenatural sneaker for $45.50 while the real one retails for $130.

The complaint contains claims for trademark counterfeiting and infringement, cybersquatting and unfair competition. Adidas demands an injunction barring these websites and their associated businesses from selling counterfeit and infringing goods and that each pays its profits and accompanying damages to Adidas for each counterfeit trademark used and product type sold. It also demands the domain registry for each of the websites suspend the domains and that search engines permanently disable, de-index or delist all the associated URLs.

The case is before Judge Raag Singhal. The defendants will have an opportunity to answer the complaint and deny the accusations. 

More From Our Brands

‘bohemian rhapsody’ editor john ottman to direct antonio vivaldi biopic (exclusive), inside jeffrey gibson’s us pavilion at the venice biennale, where color brings history to life, this is the most stunning 2024 eclipse photo i’ve seen, the best yoga mats for any practice, according to instructors.

Sportico is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Sportico Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Adidas Pledges to Increase Diversity. Some Employees Want More.

The sportswear company has been facing dissension owing to what some say is an internal culture that can be discriminating toward black workers.

By Julie Creswell and Kevin Draper

Over the last two days, the sportswear giant Adidas has made several promises to black employees.

The company said that 30 percent of new hires would be black or Latino. It pledged to fund 50 university scholarships a year for black students over the next five years. And in an employee call on Wednesday, Zion Armstrong, the president of Adidas in North America, said the company would expand funding for programs that address racial disparities to $120 million over the next five years.

But for some black employees, missing from all of the pronouncements this week was what they had been pushing for internally: an acknowledgment by company executives that Adidas had a problem with racism and discrimination, and an explicit apology for that treatment.

Late Wednesday afternoon, some black employees felt vindicated when Adidas put up a statement on Instagram , saying the company would be nothing without “Black athletes, Black artists, Black employees and Black consumers.”

“We’ve celebrated athletes and artists in the Black community and used their image to define ourselves culturally as a brand, but missed the message in reflecting such little representation within our walls,” the social media post said.

The tone on a call among 130 mostly black employees inside the company shortly after the social media post went up was celebratory, according to several people on the call, coming after what had been a particularly tumultuous period. But it did not totally satisfy everyone.

“It did acknowledge us and did own up a bit, but to me it is a devastating miss not to just say sorry,” said Kevin Wright, an Adidas gaming employee.

The unrest inside Adidas began two weeks ago when many black employees and their supporters were frustrated by the public response of the company, which has its global headquarters in Germany, to the protests rippling across the world following the killing of George Floyd, a black man who died after a white police officer knelt on his neck.

Dozens of employees ceased working and instead attended daily protests held outside of the company’s North American headquarters in Portland, Ore. Others posted on social media, detailing their experiences with discrimination in the workplace and arguing that the company’s words — its public anti-discrimination stance — did not match its actions.

A coalition of mostly black employees worked through the weekend with white leadership in Portland, creating a set of goals and a plan for achieving them.

Believing they were close to achieving a breakthrough, members of the coalition even drafted a statement this week for the company’s board of directors in Germany to sign off on. It included an acknowledgment of its problems with racism and would offer an official apology.

Instead, the company released a statement on Tuesday that said 30 percent of new hires would be black or Latino and pledged to invest in scholarships for black students and programs that benefited the black community, but omitted any references to internal discrimination, angering many employees. On Wednesday’s call, Mr. Armstrong expanded on Tuesday’s statement but offered no corporate apology.

Adidas declined to comment beyond its statements.

The unrest inside Adidas may have followed the global protests, but many black workers have long felt discriminated against by their employer and disillusioned with the company’s leadership.

Last year, The New York Times found that in 2018 only 4.5 percent of the 1,700 employees on the Portland campus identified themselves as black, and only about 1 percent of the more than 300 of the worldwide vice presidents were black. Black employees often felt marginalized and sometimes discriminated against by the largely white executives in Portland. Two employees said they were referred to with a racist slur by white co-workers.

Adidas’s internal struggles with race run counter to its outward embrace of black culture and sports, particularly through its high-profile partnerships with entertainers like Beyoncé, Kanye West and Pharrell Williams and athletes, including the N.B.A. stars James Harden and Damian Lillard. Those relationships have translated into sales among black and Hispanic youth for Adidas.

“It is sad when this company is fueled by the culture outside, but inside there is a limitation on black talent because we are only good for that information extracted,” said Aric Armon, an Adidas footwear designer.

Listen to ‘The Daily’: Protesting Her Own Employer

How an assistant apparel designer at adidas came to lead daily protests against her employer’s handling of race..

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

The racial reckoning that began two months ago in America’s streets is now reaching into many of the country’s biggest and best-known companies as workers demand greater diversity, empowerment, and accountability. Today, a conversation with one of those workers, Julia Bond, about her journey from employee to protester inside her own office.

It’s Friday, August 14.

Julia, what is your first memory of Adidas?

So I remember being very young and being at the community pool as a kid.

I remember being drawn to my uncle’s swimming trunks. They were like this electric blue, really vibrant color. And of course, they had three stripes on them. I remember being like, oh, I really love the color of your shorts. Those are awesome. And I remember he looked at me. He was like, hey, maybe one day, you might make them.

It gave me a little bit of — like, my first interaction with this brand where it was like, wow, maybe one day I could. Maybe one day, you know, I can have that kind of dream.

So how do you fall into fashion? Why that world?

So as a kid, I put a lot of work into some pretty stupid and crazy outfits.

I was always obsessed about the feeling of a fit. Early in mid-2000s, I’m in high school, so big belts, boot-cut jeans. I mean, I can just tell you a high school Julia, right? I would dream about those — this is going to be blasphemous — those Air Force 1’s.

(SINGING) On them Nike Air Force “NE” behind the “O.”

White, crispy, clean Air Force 1s.

(RAPPING) Chrome on the fat laces at that wood on the inside.

I remember just being like, I’m just going to play in my clothes. Every day was like a new day to play in my clothes.

(SINGING) Where you gettin’ them colors? Are you dyin’ them? 10 is my size and —

My mom, she’s a dancer and a creative. And my dad — he’s retired now, but he was a policeman. No one in my family had ever done the college thing, really. So I was kind of, like, the first, so I made a lot of mistakes. I applied to a lot of schools outside of state and got into a lot of them, but I had the very realistic bill that came through. So I ended up having to go to the University of Cincinnati in my backyard. And I got into the fashion school.

So once you’re in fashion school, how did you make your way to Adidas?

The way my school program was set up, you interned every other semester after your first year. So like everybody else in school, I was applying for the design job. And I applied for Under Armour. And they told me, OK, if you can get over here, there’s an internship waiting for you, blah, blah, blah.

And I was so excited. It was like, oh, my gosh. It’s like my foot into some door. And while I was at Under Armour, my boss at the time, she encouraged me — she’s like, you should apply for the Adidas internship.

And to put it in perspective, I’m a Black girl from Ohio who discovered fashion school. So for her to tell me that, it was very much like, are you serious? I mean, this was a dream, right? And I’m living in this. That’s like shooting for the stars. That’s a little too much.

So she’s saying Under Armour is great. We make great athletic clothing. But you should aim even higher.

Yeah. And she’s like, nah, I think you could get in. I think you should apply and get your portfolio. I’ll take a look at it for you. And I applied, and I kind of forgot about it. I was like, well, they probably won’t call me back, but at least I applied.

And so I get a call the following April, and it’s Adidas. And they’re like, hey, we’d like to interview you for our internship program. And when I got that call, I was literally running around school, like, oh my god, oh my god, oh my god.

It was one of the biggest wins I had had in my career at the time, and it was — I mean, who doesn’t want to work at Adidas? It was one of those — like, oh, my god. I’m starting to get into rooms I was dreaming about.

Right. Because this is not just you getting an internship. It sounds like you’re saying this is a door opening to an actually feasible career in this industry.

Exactly. And I remember pinching myself when I was in orientation. I remember being like, oh, my god. I’m in the room.

I’m at Adidas.

And what did you think?

It was probably one of my most creative moments. I’m working alongside people that come from all these different walks of life, all these different spaces. It was literally everything I could have dreamed of. And I got busy. I was like, what do y’all need from me as the intern? Y’all need me to sew? Cool. Y’all need me to draw? Cool. So I was working all of these muscles that I never truly worked out before. And it was truly such an amazing experience for me.

And what were you most proud of doing during this internship?

That season, we were really — this was our fall/winter ‘19 season. Everything had the visual language of an asymmetric block kind of style. So I ended up designing a pair of asymmetric pants because it was the one thing in the line that was not right. We all kind of knew it. Every other designer is like, I can’t draw another thing. I just can’t. And I was like, I’ll take a stab at it. So I ended up staying late one day and drawing some things out, trying to take some things off so I could see it on the form. And it ended up getting signed off on. So it landed.

And then I remember my director looked at me, and he was like, they’re going to make thousands of them. I was like, oh, my god!

Yeah. That season, quite honestly, changed my life. Being on this team, it taught me that process of visualizing and then creating, visualizing and then creating. And it also let me know that anything is possible.

So shortly after that, I went back to school. And I got the call my senior year — it was February — for a full-time role on that team. And I was just ecstatic. I was like, here we go. Now it’s the start of my career. And then my mom, she cried when I told her because she realized — she was like, you’re about to do things that I never did. And she made me have a really ugly cry at my graduation because she told me — she’s like, you’ve had to navigate systems that I’ve never navigated. And you are operating and succeeding in systems that I’ve never found myself in. And she was like, as a mother, it’s encouraging that I did something right with you because of the spaces that I see you going to. So go over there and show ‘em what’s up.

So Julia, what was it like when you began working full time at Adidas?

So as an intern, I didn’t really look around me and, I guess, see that there weren’t as many Black women in design there. I was just happy to be in the room. And I was just like, oh, my god. This is so cool. But I noticed once I came here for my full-time role that the diversity on my team had kind of left.

Hmm. What do you mean?

A lot can happen in a year. And some of my friends — I would call them and be like, hey, I didn’t know you left. And they shared with me a little bit of their experience leaving. And they were like, it’s extremely difficult to be us in that space. And they kind of warned me to watch my back and tread carefully, but at the same time, do my best work.

And how did you feel when you had these conversations? How did that make you feel?

I mean, they were disheartening a little bit. But sometimes, you don’t believe in it until you live it kind of thing. And I know I’m that way where I’m like, ah, it can’t be that bad, or oh, it’s not really like that, is it? Let me try it out and see, right? So I kind of — it wasn’t disbelief because I believed my friends’ experiences and the way they described them. But it was a little bit of hesitancy because as an intern, you only get four or five months of that experience, so you don’t really understand the politics of the space you’re walking in. But then I really thought about it, and I looked, and I started to see in meetings. And I used to be like, oh, my god, I am the only one in the room. And maybe these experiences that I’m having now, maybe they are the reasons why people leave.

Is there a story that sticks out in your mind as you’re looking around the company, seeing that you’re quite alone in being a Black person on this team?

So essentially, there were two experiences that were very — I would call them overt forms of racism. So the first example — I was on Instagram scrolling through, and I see that my senior director has put an image — you know how on LinkedIn, you get those little — like, so-and-so wants to join your network or whatever? And then it’s their picture and their name. He essentially took a screenshot of it, and it was obviously someone who was Asian. And their name was Bruce Lee. And he posted that screenshot on his public Instagram. And it said, enter the dragon. People were commenting on it.

People said, ha ha, this is so funny. And it didn’t sit well with me because I have some friends who are Asian on the team. And they were like, that image make me feel as if I can’t even speak to my director. And they were like, I have a hard time being in meetings with him because obviously, he has a caricature version of what Asian people are. And so I went to H.R. with my team. We were like, let’s go to H.R. about it because that’s not right. And people are being silent about the fact that they feel bad on the team because of it. And I expressed to them in H.R. — I said, you know, that would be something like taking a screenshot of a Black guy, and it says Will Smith, and then as the caption, you put “get jiggy with it.” I was like, that’s not OK. It’s not OK to mock people publicly like that.

Our H.R. representative, she sat and listened to us. And then after we were finished speaking, she said, you know, I hear you all. Obviously, I appreciate you guys bringing this up. But he’s a nice guy. And do you think that his intent was malicious in any way? Do you think that he meant for this to be — like, it seems like he meant for this to be a joke. And I remember sitting in that meeting, and I didn’t have the words for it. But I was sitting there like, it doesn’t matter what his intentions were. His behavior has proven destructive. He’s probably a very nice guy. He probably is very polite and says thank you and is amazing to have a conversation with. But his actions have repercussions, and they’re trickling on the team. And I think that our H.R. really missed that. The post, of course, was taken down, but it let me know that — oh, wow, H.R. has some bias as well. And my second example — and this is also — just to give you context into how I’m feeling at this time, I’m two months into my job, and the Confederate flag image landed on our design wall.

What do you mean?

So Adidas decided to create, basically, little bundles of imagery for this particular season that had different moods, essentially.

So this is like an inspiration wall or panel?

It’s an inspiration deck. So they essentially were like, this is what we want you to go after. We want you to be inspired by these images for the season. All the images were put up in this really big, beautiful mural on the wall so that all the designers — we could just be constantly thinking about it, and it would be in the back of our heads. We had an intern at the time. And our intern came up to us, and she was like, hey, have you guys seen the Confederate flag image on the wall? And I just laughed because I was like, what? I was like, there’s no way. I was in such utter disbelief. And I googled it. I looked at it. I showed her. I was like, are you sure it’s this? She’s like, yeah. She’s like, come look. It’s on the wall. So we all get up, and we go walk over to the wall. And sure enough, posted on the wall is a picture of an Asian man skating with a Confederate flag printed on his t-shirt.

I looked at that image, and it just — it really, really hurt to be told as a designer, a young Black designer, our highest design aspiration is a Confederate flag, which is one of the most hateful symbols that I can think of towards Black people. And I just remember sitting there, and I was like, I can’t believe that this is there. And then I began to think about how many hands it had to pass through, how many eyes saw it, and nobody caught it. No one caught it.

That’s really hard to fathom.

It alarmed me so much because I’m an assistant designer. I’m a Black assistant designer. And the majority of people that we work with as a brand are Black people — Black athletes, Black musicians, Kanye West, Beyonce, Pharrell. And our consumer base, right?

There’s a huge disconnect when it comes to how we’re on the inside versus what people associate with us on the outside. And as a Black female designer, I feel that disconnect daily when I’m working.

So I was like, I need to go to H.R.. So I went with my team. We met with a woman in H.R., and we expressed to her what happened. And she asked me what I wanted. She’s like, what would give you resolution? What is it that you need? And I told her — I was like, I need an apology from leadership. And I need them to say it won’t happen again. She’s like, this is a global issue. And she was like, it will be discussed. So I left that meeting feeling really hopeful because I was like, OK, wow, this is going to get escalated. This is actually going to maybe have some change, and we can have a better way of working.

And so what happened? When did you next hear back?

So about a month later, there was a meeting put on everyone’s calendar. And it was very vague. And it was like, Nick’s going to address the design team. And Nick is our big boss, right? So when the big boss shows up, there’s a bunch of commotion. So I’m in the meeting, and then Nick starts to speak. And he starts talking about the image. He’s talking about symbols and how there was a miss. And I’m really listening for an apology anywhere in what he’s saying. He then goes on to say — and I’m paraphrasing — he’s like, these kind of things can’t really be prevented. We can just have an open discussion when they do happen. I think my mouth was wide open because it was a deflection. And it seemed like a very hands-off approach to coming up with actual systems to better protect Black people and people of color.

I sat with that, and I kind of just decided to get really, really small. I decided to just be really good at my job. I realized that nothing was going to change and that I should just sit down and shut up and quit being so loud about it and just get the job done at that point.

So your response to this is to kind of hunker down and to become a little bit less of yourself?

Yeah. But I don’t want that story to become the noise of the depth of the struggles that Black people face in the workspace there. Because yes, there are really big moments where a Confederate flag shows up at the wall. But it’s deeper than that. It is small things that happen daily. For example, I’ve been called — because I am so fair-skinned — oh, Julia, you’re so light. You’re basically white. And it’s like a joke that negates my Black experience, right? And there’s been things about my hair. And it’s like, oh, it’s so fluffy. Do you even need to sleep on a pillow? And it’s like, yes, I’m not an alien. I sleep on a pillow like a normal person. It’s small things like that that are daily reminders of your blackness in that space.

Is there a moment when you decide, actually, no, I’m not going to make myself small, and I’m not just going to accept that this is how it’s going to be?

I think that’s the moment I watched the George Floyd video.

Adidas posted an image that had the word ‘racism’ on it, and then in a red outline, crossed it out. And I remember sitting, looking at that post, and realizing how tone deaf it was for my company to just cross out racism and then put a whole bunch of empty statements about togetherness and not really talk about its own hand in being complicit with it.

And I remember being on Instagram and seeing all these people post about justice and how we can’t be silent anymore and all these things. And I remember having to come to terms with the fact that I’m sitting here posting on my social, but I’m participating as a silent Black voice to the daily systematic oppression that is happening at the brand. I was like, so I’m — I’m a hypocrite, right? Because I’m holding a lot of stories, and I’m holding my experience because — why? And so I decided to write a letter to my Portland leadership. And I decided that I was going to sign my name at the bottom. It wasn’t going to be anonymous. I was just going to say exactly where we find ourselves now and why we can’t operate business as usual.

And my mom, she — I told her I was going to send it, and she was like, don’t do that. Why would you do that? You’ve made it. People like us don’t get jobs like that. Just pipe down, be quiet, and be good at your job, and don’t cause a fuss. My mom said something that kind of hurt me. She’s like, what are you doing? She goes, you might never design clothes again after this. You might be blacklisted. And this thing you fought so hard to get to and discovered, you might never get to do it again. You might never put your pen on paper. And I told her — I was like, Mom, even if I never got to be at Adidas again or in this kind of space, it’s more important for me to be able to sleep at night with myself. And sorry if I start crying, but I remember telling her, if I told you every day something that happened to me at this brand, some off-kilter comment about color or things like that, that will be all we talk about as a family. Sometimes I just want to leave that because I just want to talk about normal things, like how was your day, Mom, and how’s my cousin doing back home, or things like that. I don’t want to always be entrenched in the systematic oppression that is racism and the ways that it shows its face both overtly and covertly. That’s kind of what led me up to this letter. It’s not these big, giant moments of Confederate flags or things like that. It’s the culmination and the compounding of all these small areas that I find myself being squashed into.

And so I wrote that letter, and then I sent it.

We’ll be right back.

So what happened? What was the response to this letter?

So initially, certain leaders reached out immediately, and threw time on my calendar with no agenda, and wanted to just sit with me. And let’s just talk. Let’s just talk. But I knew that any conversation that I would jump into a room with leadership with would be unfruitful and cyclical in nature.

What do you mean? Why did you feel that way?

I felt that way because it mimicked a lot of what I had seen in H.R. — going into a room, you having experienced one reality, and they do not recognize your reality. And then afterwards, you expect something to change, and then nothing happens. And it kind of just gets swept under the rug, and you just have to go about your business as usual. So I didn’t respond. And then I decided every day at noon, I was going to — even if it was just me on the campus with a sign that says “expose racism,” I was going to be on the campus protesting the fact that Adidas has not delivered on this acknowledgment and apology to begin anti-racism work.

So just a couple of days after you send this letter, you decide you’re going to protest your employer.

It’s a big step.

A frightening step, a very frightening step. I’ve never participated in a protest before this, and I’ve never organized a protest before this. So I knew nothing of what I was doing.

[Sounds of prostesters chattering and cars honking]

So I had gone on the campus, and I walked up. And to my amazement, there were already, like, 20 people there. So I was like, oh, my god. I was like, all right. Well, here we are. And more and more people started flooding in. They brought their own signs. They brought their friends, their family. It just became this giant group of people.

Wow. How many people do you think were there?

It had to be at least 100 people. And it was very overwhelming to me because I just thought it was just me sitting here, alone in my experience. But it seems as if my words had resonated with more employees at the company.

So this other Black woman who works at the brand came up to me, and she was like, are you going to say anything or address the crowd at all? And I was like, uh, I hadn’t planned on it. And she was like, I think you might want to address the crowd. And so I decided to read my letter because it hadn’t been released in its entirety yet. So I got up there and was shaking and all. I thanked the crowd, and then I read my letter.

I wonder if you could read from the letter.

As a Black woman who works at Adidas, my experiences have never been business as usual.

In fact, it’s been anything but.

I can no longer stand for Adidas’s consistent complacency in taking active steps against a racist work environment. This is not business as usual.

When was the last time you saw the cruel murder of a white person passed around daily around social media?

I cannot operate business as usual any longer without the catalyst for substantial and sweeping change. That catalyst is as follows. I need this brand not only to admonish racism, but to actively be anti-racist. The ask is that Adidas issue a public apology for the racism and discrimination that they have openly enabled and perpetuated across the brand. The brand is not equitable.

The brand is biased.

Anti-racism starts with this acceptance. Without this acceptance and apology, there is no possibility for change.

I don’t know about you guys, but I’m going to be here every day at noon, holding the same signs until this brand takes action. [APPLAUSE]

And the crowd was clapping and giving signs of approval and saying, keep going, and giving all this encouragement. And maybe, like, 20 minutes after that, the crowd started to disperse.

So Julia, what were the next couple of days like at work?

So I’m not working.

You stopped working?

I guess I want to make sure I understand. So from the first day you start protesting, that’s your day. You’re not you’re not stopping and going back into the office at the end of the protest? Yeah, I’m effectively on strike, I guess. And when you say “strike,” at this point, you mean you’re striking over the company’s failure to do the things you’ve asked for in the letter — acknowledge this behavior, acknowledge the situation, and apologize for it?

Yes. So right now, it’s an uphill battle to try to change within because leadership has not acknowledged that systemic racism is at play, right? And so they would much rather just move ahead instead of addressing what it is that we’re actually talking about. Once the leadership at our brand says, yes, systemic racism exists here, it lets me know that I can walk into this space and have that conversation with them on what it looks like to change it.

I want to talk about what happened once your protests get underway. A few days after — I think it was your first protest — Adidas announces that it’s taking some steps. And The Times reported on them, and so I have a bit of a sense of it.

The company said that 30 percent of its new hires would be Black or Latinx. They say they’re going to be funding scholarships for Black students and give $120 million to programs working towards racial equity. And they post a statement on social media. And I want to read a part of it. It says, quote, “first, we need to give credit where it’s long overdue. The success of Adidas would be nothing without Black athletes, Black artists, Black employees, and Black consumers, period. Remaining silent is not a neutral position when the people we should be standing with live in fear of police brutality due to systematic racism. With that in mind, it’s our people who we owe this to the most,” by which it means employees. “Our Black co-workers. Our Black co-workers have shown us through their words and actions what leadership looks like and the changes Adidas can make. They’ve led the response that we will continue to implement together. This isn’t the final step. This is just the first.” What did you think of that response? In some ways, it sounds a bit like what you were seeking, but I don’t know if it feels like what you were seeking.

It’s not. It fell very short from where they needed to be.

Why did that fall short?

So nowhere in that Black Lives Matter post did they say that they would stop exploiting the Black talent that they would not be the brand they are without, and nowhere in that Black Lives Matter post did it say that they would apologize and acknowledge the fact that they are doing that.

So you process this post. You decide that it’s insufficient, and you decide to keep protesting, right?

And how long have you been out there, day after day now, since this all started?

Let me count, actually. Let me look at my calendar. I think we’re getting up on 50, 60 days.

And they sent an email to our whole team that said, we’re entering phase two of the protest. And if you want to protest, we completely want you to do that. But if you do protest past the lunch hour, you have to take paid time off. And effectively, when your paid time off is run out, you will enter phase three of protesting, which means you need to take an unpaid leave of absence if you’re choosing to protest and not work. So they were making people choose between standing up for what’s right and their livelihood. And I was met with an email, and two other Black and Mexican employees were met with verbal calls from their managers expressing the same message. That is retaliation. So obviously, the protest is making leadership uncomfortable. So they’re trying to find ways and use systems to effectively silence it.

I hear you saying that the company’s rules about you protesting may feel retaliatory to you.

On the other hand, so far, they have let you protest and paid you during the time for about two months. So how are you reconciling those two things?

I have an email from my manager when I told him I wasn’t coming into work. He said, take as much time as you need. So that’s coming from my director. And I also have an email from my H.R. representative where she says, everybody should be able to come to work feeling safe, valued, and connected to their workplace. So I told him — I said, I’m not taking P.T.O. We’re in this weird standoff at the moment where it’s like, they don’t want to deliver on what they don’t feel like they should. They don’t feel like it’s necessary for them to. And I’m saying, you have to do that in order to be the thing that you’re saying that you are.

Right. And I’m going to guess that there are people who hear you telling the story and think nobody, at the end of the day, can be paid in perpetuity to protest. You’re a salaried employee. You’ve got to come back to work, or you need to leave. And I wonder what you say to that.

I say that until that space is set up for Black people and people of color to succeed, it’s not going to work. The system is broken. So in me walking into this space, I’m participating and perpetuating and building, even, on a broken system.

Is there any part of you that wakes up in the morning these days and asks yourself — you know, I’ve been here for about a year as an employee. Maybe I should go back inside and do the work I’m doing outside the building inside the building — person to person, superior to superior, convince people inside of the change, and go back to work and see what this looks like over time, that this change is always going to be slow. It’s going to take time. And at the end of the day, even an acknowledgment and an apology may not give me what I want because they’re just words. But the hard work is what needs to happen inside that building by being inside that building and being an employee and trying to make the change happen through those doors, not outside them.

So in going public with what it looks like in the brand, there has been more movement than I’ve seen in the past two months, in the past year that I have been working there full time.

So so far, you think it’s been more effective to be on the outside than it would be to be on the inside?

Absolutely. People have been on the inside since the brand started.

Why all of a sudden are things different? It’s because someone chose to come outside. Somebody went outside.

I’ve got to head over to my protest, guys. I can’t be late.

So you were about to leave home and head to Adidas.

Yep. We’ve been protesting every day at noon until will they deliver on what’s been asked.

Julia, thank you very much. We really appreciate it.

Here’s what else you need to know today.

This is something that hasn’t been done in more than 25 years. Just a few moments ago, I hosted a very special call with two friends — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of the United Arab Emirates, where they agreed to finalize a historical peace agreement. Everybody said this would be impossible.

On Thursday, Israel said it had struck an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to establish the full normalization of relations between the two countries, a historic development in a region where many Arab countries still refuse to engage in diplomacy with Israel.

This deal is a significant step towards building a more peaceful, secure, and prosperous Middle East. Now that the ice has been broken, I expect more Arab and Muslim countries will follow the United Arab Emirates’ lead.

The U.A.E. would become only the third Arab country after Egypt and Jordan to have diplomatic relations with Israel. As part of the agreement, Israel will suspend its controversial plans to annex parts of the West Bank.

And in an interview, President Trump said that he does not want to fund the U.S. Postal Service because Democrats are seeking to expand mail-in voting during the pandemic, directly linking his refusal to approve $25 billion dollars in emergency funding to the upcoming election. The remarks drew a furious response from Democrats, who said that the president was seeking to use his power to suppress voting in order to win a second term.

Finally, The Times reports that the United States may have already reached a death toll of 200,000 from the pandemic based on an analysis of data from the federal government. The data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that at least 200,000 more Americans have died than usual since March when the pandemic started in the US. Not all of those deaths may be from Covid-19, but since many states are weeks or months behind in counting deaths from the virus, the total U.S. death count may offer a more complete picture of the pandemic’s impact.

“The Daily” is made by Theo Balcomb, Andy Mills, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Jonathan Wolfe, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, Kelly Prime, Julia Longoria, Sindhu Gnanasambandan, M.J. Davis Lin, Austin Mitchell, Neena Pathak, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Daniel Guillemette, Hans Buetow, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Bianca Giaever, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja and Liz O. Baylen. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Mikayla Bouchard, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Nora Keller, Mahima Chablani, Des Ibekwe, Julie Cresswell and Kevin Draper. That’s it for The Daily. I’m Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.

On Tuesday, the company banned the use of the word “asset” when referring to people, including sponsored athletes and entertainers, noting the word is offensive to cultures that have been enslaved. The announcement slide included a picture of Mr. Harden, noting, “You are an athlete, not an asset.”

Frustration inside the company rose at the end of last month.

On May 29, Nike posted a 60-second video on its social media accounts that implored, “Don’t pretend there’s not a problem in America.” The next day, Adidas retweeted Nike’s social media campaign.

The company scrambled to come up with its own response. Later that day Reebok, a Boston-based footwear company owned by Adidas, posted on social media that “Without the black community, Reebok would not exist.” Two hours later, Adidas put its statement on Instagram: an image of the word “Racism” crossed out . It was not well received inside the company.

Adidas, aware of growing unrest among employees, said that June 2 would be a “Day of Reflection,” and that employees should not have any meetings that day.

Julia Bond, who joined the company last year as an assistant apparel designer, used part of the day to write a letter to executives in Portland, asking for an apology for the racism and discrimination that she says has been “enabled and perpetuated” at the company.

The next day, Ms. Bond emailed her letter to Adidas leadership in North America. That afternoon, she began reaching out to the news media, taking her letter and story public.

“Adidas likes to keep it really quiet,” Ms. Bond said. “Keep it anonymous. I decided it was time to put a face to this problem. But it was very frightening and quite daunting to do that.”

Inspired by Ms. Bond, Mr. Armon sent a letter to his bosses detailing his experience with a white co-worker who used a racial slur. He also posted it publicly on Instagram .

“This is the time to stop it,” he said. “There is momentum like there has never been before. I want to make sure this brand is better after I leave than when I got in.”

While Adidas began holding company calls about racism and discrimination, a coalition of about a dozen mostly black employees inside the company put together a 32-page presentation that included a list of demands. It called for more diversity among employees and investment in the black community, along with timelines for when they should be accomplished.

Another group of employees made plans to strike until their demands were met. Some employees refused to work last Friday and on Monday, and others began a daily noon protest outside the company’s Portland offices — the first time many employees had seen one another in person in months because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Adidas executives in Portland, including Mr. Armstrong, began communicating with the coalition of employees who put together the presentation about its demands. Over the weekend, the two sides tried to formulate how to best bring about real, significant change inside Adidas.

The results of those meetings were sent to the Adidas board in Germany, while discussions and negotiations in Portland continued through Monday evening. Members of the employee group believed they were on the cusp of having many of their demands met and that they would finally see Adidas apologize and pledge to improve.

They were left disappointed by Tuesday’s announcement by Adidas and Wednesday’s statement by Mr. Armstrong.

But the mood shifted once again with Adidas’s posting on Wednesday. Many saw it as a hard-won victory, a big step by the company to admitting the problem.

But others said something was still missing.

“This is a great first step,” said Aaron Ture, a product manager for footwear at Reebok who is biracial and has worked for Adidas for three years. Mr. Ture also wrote a letter to the company in recent days about his experiences and concerns with the company. “But we can only start to build this future once we have sorted out the past.”

Julie Creswell is a New York-based reporter. She has covered banks, private equity, retail and health care. She previously worked for Fortune Magazine and also wrote about debt, monetary policy and mutual funds at Dow Jones. More about Julie Creswell

Kevin Draper is a sports business reporter, covering the leagues, owners, unions, stadiums and media companies behind the games. Prior to joining The Times, he was an editor at Deadspin. More about Kevin Draper

Explore Our Business Coverage

Dive deeper into the people, issues and trends shaping the world of business..

Ghost Kitchens Are Disappearing: Delivery-only operations boomed  during the pandemic. Now Wendy’s, Kroger’s and mom-and-pop food businesses are rethinking their operations.

Axios Shifts Its Strategy: Jim VandeHei, the chief executive of Axios, is becoming one of the first news executives  to adjust their company’s strategy because of A.I.

The Worst Part of a Wall Street Career: A.I. tools can replace much of Wall Street’s entry-level white-collar work , raising tough questions about the future of finance.

Combining Business and Leisure Travel: As employees increasingly add leisure time to their business trips , companies are trying to figure out where their duty of care obligations begin and end.

Inside Executive Protection Jobs: Here’s how three women trained to work in jobs protecting prominent families  and ultra-high-net-worth individuals.

Gen X-ers Inch Toward Retirement: The oldest members of Generation X are several years from stopping work , but some are already seeking homes that will suit their later years.

• The Project

Doing Business Right Blog

The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part III): A Deep Dive into Adidas’ Practices - By Shamistha Selvaratnam

Editor’s note : Shamistha Selvaratnam is a LLM Candidate of the Advanced Masters of European and International Human Rights Law at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Prior to commencing the LLM, she worked as a business and human rights solicitor in Australia where she specialised in promoting business respect for human rights through engagement with policy, law and practice.

The tragic collapse of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh in 2013, which killed over one thousand workers and injured more than two thousand, brought global attention to the potential human rights risks and impacts that are inherent to the garment and footwear sector. [1] This sector employs millions of workers within its supply chain in order to enable large-scale production of goods as quickly as possible at the lowest cost as market trends and consumer preferences change. [2] These workers are often present in countries where the respect for human rights and labour rights is weak. This creates an environment that is conducive to human rights abuses. Key risks in this sector include child labour, sexual harassment and gender-based violence, forced labour, non-compliance with minimum wage laws and excessive work hours. [3] Accordingly, brands such as Adidas face the challenge of conducting effective human rights due diligence (HRDD), particularly in their supply chains. 

This third blog of a series of articles dedicated to HRDD is a case study looking at how HRDD has materialised in practice within Adidas’ supply chains . It will be followed by another case study examining the steps taken by Unilever in order to operationalise the concept of HRDD. To wrap up the series, a final piece will reflect on the effectiveness of the turn to HRDD to strengthen respect of human rights by businesses.

Company Background

Adidas Group (Adidas) is an apparel, footwear and sporting goods company that is headquartered in Germany. As a business it designs, markets and sells consumer goods globally. Adidas has more than 2,300 retail stores, 14,000 franchise stores and 150,000 wholesale distributors, as well as an online store. [4] It employs more than 57,000 people and produces over 900 million products globally. [5]

Given that it outsources most of its production, it has a complex and large scale supply chain, with approximately 700 independent factories that manufacture products in over 50 countries. [6]  Its supplier factories by region as at 2016 are depicted in the image below. Its top sourcing countries are China, Vietnam and Indonesia. [7]

Source: Adidas Sustainability Progress Report 2016 , p 61.

Adidas has both direct suppliers and indirect suppliers (i.e. material and other service providers that supply goods and services to Adidas’ direct suppliers; licensees which manage the design, production and distribution of specific products to Adidas; and agents that act as intermediaries and determine where products are manufactured, manage the manufacturing process and sell finished products to the group). Approximately 75% of its total sourcing volume comes directly from its supply chain, with the other 25% coming from agents or made under licence. The manufactured products are sold in over 100 markets. [8]

Adidas states that it supports the UNGPs and it is a ‘long time adherent’ to the OECD Guidelines. It considers that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights is a ‘global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises’ and it states that it has ‘incorporated key elements of the [UNGPs] into its general practice in managing the human rights impacts of its business.’

Adidas’ general approach to human rights is firstly to strive ‘to operate responsibly and in a sustainable way along the entire value chain’, and secondly to safeguard the rights of its employees and those that work in its manufacturing supply chains. HRDD is a key part of this approach. Given the extensive nature of Adidas’ supply chains, it has taken a targeted approach to HRDD by focusing on mitigating and remediating issues that arise in high-risk locations, processes and activities. [9] It also imposes ‘cascading responsibilities’ on its business partners in order to ‘capture and address potential and actual human rights issues upstream and downstream’. [10]

Adidas’ Social and Environmental Affairs team (SEA Team) is tasked with, inter alia, ensuring compliance with the Workplace Standards within Adidas’ supply chains (discussed in further detail below). The Team consists of approximately 70 individuals, including engineers, lawyers, HR managers and former members of NGOs. It is organised into three regional teams covering Asia, the Americas and Europe, Middle East and Africa. The Team collaborates with other functions within Adidas, including Legal and Human Resources. The Team works collaboratively with other functions, including Legal, Sourcing and Human Resources. It engages directly with suppliers, governments and other external stakeholders as and when required.

Identification and Assessment of Risks

Adidas engages in a range of processes to identify and assess its human rights risks and impacts on a continuous basis within its supply chains. Adidas’ SEA Team engages commissioned third party experts and independent audits as part of this process where necessary. [11]

Adidas completes annual Country Risk Assessments (CRAs), which are not publically available, in the countries in which it sources products whereby it reviews the salient human rights issues and risks in a particular country. CRAs are informed by various people, including Adidas’ field teams, its engagement with local stakeholders, concerns raised by international NGOs, as well as an examination of regional human rights reports (as necessary). The risks identified in these CRAs inform its priorities and guides its prevention and mitigation strategies, particularly in relation to its supply chain monitoring.

Entry into new countries

Where Adidas plans to enter a new sourcing country, in-depth assessments are normally undertaken over a period of one to two years. The process involves engagement with government departments, international agencies and civil society groups to determine country level risks and issues. This process informs whether Adidas should or should not enter a particular country, as well as whether additional processes should be undertaken to safeguard against particular adverse human rights impacts that are common within a country arising within Adidas’ supply chains.

Engaging with new suppliers

All new supplier relationships must be disclosed to Adidas’ SEA Team for approval.

The process followed by Adidas when considering entering into direct supplier relationships is illustrated below.

Adidas conducts an initial assessment, which consists of a document check whereby prospective suppliers are assessed against the Workplace Standards (discussed below) and may include a factory visit. As stated in Adidas’ Enforcement Guidelines , Adidas checks prospective suppliers against a set of zero tolerance issues (e.g. prison labour, repetitive and systematic abuse, life-threatening health and safety conditions) [12] and threshold issues (e.g. fraud and exploitation issues, serious labour issues). [13] Zero tolerance issues are severe breaches that ‘may threaten the lives or well-being of workers, suppress fundamental rights, or result in irreparable damage to the environment’, whereas threshold issues are ‘those types of breaches or workplace issues which are considered to be extremely serious in nature, requiring enforcement action to be taken against existing suppliers.’ [14]

Where a zero tolerance issue exists, Adidas will reject a relationship with that particular prospective supplier, whereas where a threshold issue exists, if the issue can be fixed, a prospective supplier will be given a timeline to rectify the issues. If they are found to have improved after a subsequent check, they will be approved. [15] In 2018, Adidas conducted initial assessments of 221 factories. As a result, approximately 25% were rejected directly after the initial assessment due to the presence of zero tolerance issues or after a second visit due to the presence of threshold issues that they failed to rectify between the initial and subsequent visits. [16]

With respect to Adidas’ indirect supply chain, external audit firms are commissioned to carry out initial assessments. Adidas provides detailed guidance to these external monitors so that assessments are carried out in a consistent manner. Where these assessments identify the need for remediation processes, the SEA team oversees them. [17]

Once a supplier, agent, licensee or subcontract has been approved, they enter into a formal legal agreement (e.g. manufacturing agreement). Adidas’ Workplace Standards are an integral part of such agreements – parties are contractually bound to uphold the Workplace Standards and act in a manner that safeguards human rights, workers’ employment rights, safety and the environment. They are also required to assist in identifying issues as and when they arise. [18] Suppliers are encouraged to share the Workplace Standards with their subordinate relationships, including external service providers. Additionally, Adidas incorporates human rights-related clauses into its direct supplier contracts, as well as clauses relating to labour, workplace health and safety and the environment.

Engaging with existing suppliers

Once direct suppliers have been approved and have entered into a contractual relationship with Adidas, Adidas monitors their compliance through auditing, factory visits, worker feedback mechanisms, partnerships with external organisations (such as ILO Better Work, the Bangladesh Accord and the Fair Labor Association) and stakeholder outreach, including engagement with government regulators, unions, employer federations, workers and civil society groups at the country level. This process enables Adidas to monitor its supply chain risk to ensure that its suppliers manufacture in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. [19]

The CRAs that Adidas conducts results in the categorisation of countries as either high or low risk, factories located in high-risk countries are more likely to be audited regularly (the full list of countries by category is not publicly available). Factories located in low-risk countries are excluded from Adidas’ audit coverage. [20] Factories are assessed based on their commitment to and performance against the Workplace Standards . During 2018, Adidas conducted 546 factory visits in order to engage to ‘improve working conditions and … empower workers’ [21] , and 1,207 social compliance audits and environment assessments. Additionally, for suppliers that were considered to be ‘compliance mature’ 102 self-governance audits and collaboration audits were conducted, which were reviewed by Adidas. 

Where non-compliances are identified, if the relevant issue is a zero tolerance issue a warning and potential disqualification of a supplier will be triggered. If the relevant issue is a threshold issue, Adidas will see whether the issue can be addressed in a specified timeframe through remedial action. It may also take enforcement action against the supplier, which includes the termination of the relationship, stop-work notices, third party investigations and warning letters. In 2018, Adidas issued a total of 39 warning letters across 16 countries, and terminated agreements with one supplier on the basis that it refused to grant the SEA team access to audit the factory. [22]

The top 10 labour and health and safety non-compliance findings during the 2018 audits are depicted in the image below.

Source: Adidas Annual Report 2018 , p 99.

External monitors that have been approved by Adidas audit indirect supply chain factories that work with Adidas’ licensees and agents. Audits are conducted at least once a year, but will be conducted more frequently when additional follow up assessments are required to monitor remedial action.

Adidas has also implemented a Crisis Protocol so that business entities and factories can report on high-risk issues, which in turn inform Adidas’ site visits, audits and engagement with the business entities and factories. [23]

Stakeholder Engagement Channels

Adidas’ Stakeholder Relations Guidelines define its stakeholders as ‘those people or organizations who affect, or are affected by, [its] operations and activities.’ Its stakeholders include employees, shareholders and investors, authorisers (e.g. governments and trade associations), business partners (e.g. unions and suppliers), workers in supplier factories, customers and opinion-formers (e.g. journalists and special interest groups). Adidas claims to utilise stakeholder engagement in order to identify human rights risks and impacts through its supply chains. In order to obtain the views of these different stakeholders, frequent forms of engagement utilised by Adidas include stakeholder consultation meetings with workers, NGOs and suppliers, meetings with investors and Socially Responsible Investment analysts, employee engagement surveys and programmes, responding to inquiries from consumers and the media and participating in multi-stakeholders initiatives (e.g. the Better Cotton Initiative). Adidas aims to ensure that its engagement is balanced and inclusive.

Adidas captures and addresses complaints from third parties through its third party grievance mechanism . The mechanism allows third parties directly affected by an issue, including workers within its supply chains, to raise complaints. Complaints may be raised in relation to violations of Adidas’ Workplace Standards , or any potential, or actual, breach of human rights linked to Adidas’ operations, products or services. As part of this, Adidas also has an SMS hotline in the countries in which it sources its products so that workers can voice their concerns in an easy manner. From 2014 to 2018, Adidas has received a total of 52 complaints relating to labour and human right concerns by third parties. Third parties may also lodge complaints through the Third Party Complaint Process of the Fair Labor Association and the OECD National Contact Point for Germany.

Additionally, Adidas’ SEA Team regularly meets and interviews supply chain workers and tracks feedback from independent worker hotlines and from its suppliers’ own internal complaint systems.

Identified risks

Through the processes set out above Adidas has identified various human rights risks in its supply chains. Salient human rights risks include : freedom of association and collective bargaining, working hours, health and safety, fair wages, child labor, forced labor, resource consumption, water (including chemical management), access to grievance mechanisms, diversity, mega sporting events, procurement, product safety, as well as data protection and privacy security.  

Other risks identified include right of assembly, freedom of expression, migrant workers, human trafficking, discrimination, Indigenous peoples’ rights, occupational health and safety and environmental pollution. [24] A number of these risks are common to the garment and footwear industry as noted by the OECD Guideline on Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Industry .

Integrating and Acting

Adidas feeds the findings from the identification and assessment processes set out above into its active programmes and they drive prevention and mitigation measures.

The SEA Team reports risks identified in Adidas’ supply chains to executive management on a monthly basis. [25] Reporting highlights the critical issues, investigations and remedial efforts taken with respect to Adidas’ direct and indirect supply chains. This is the ‘primary vehicle through which human rights concerns are shared with senior management and reported progress is tracked’.

Where adverse human rights impacts occur, Adidas seeks to remediate those cases. Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) are put in place, which set out the remedial action, the responsible party and a timeframe to complete that action. The supplier’s specific proposals in the CAP are then tracked and the appropriate documentation, or remedial action(s), reviewed to close-out the non-compliances. CAPs are normally developed through engagement with the suppliers, to define expectations and negotiate appropriate timelines. [26]   The SEA Team closely monitors the development and implementation of CAPs through follow-up audits and record progress and verification status. 

In the past, Adidas has examined and remediated instances of ‘forced labour, child labour, freedom of association, right of assembly, freedom of expression, discrimination, indigenous people’s rights, occupational health and safety, resource consumption and environmental pollution’. [27] It has also dealt with specific cases where workers have been subject to arbitrary arrest and detention and reached out to judicial authorities where human rights defenders have also faced arrest and detention for supporting worker’s rights. It has petitioned governments for their failures in enforcement, particularly in relation to the right to form and join trade unions and the upholding of statutory minimum wages. [28]

In order to prevent adverse human rights impacts from occurring, Adidas binds its suppliers to its Workplace Standards. It continuously monitors those suppliers in which it has a direct contractual relationship and assesses their performance against the Workplace Standards. Adidas also engages in capacity building to strengthen its suppliers’ internal governance and management systems in order to reduce the potential for adverse human rights impacts. With respect to its indirect supply chain, Adidas places expectations on its primary business partners to engage and apply its Workplace Standards.

With respect to grievances raised, in cases where Adidas has caused or directly contributed to the violation, it will seek to prevent or mitigate the chance of the impact occurring or recurring. If an adverse impact is occurring, Adidas will engage actively in its remediation – this may involve site visits, audits or other engagement with a business entity or factory. [29] Where Adidas has neither caused nor directly contributed to a violation, it will encourage the business entity that has caused or contributed to the impact to prevent or mitigate its recurrence.

Adidas monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of its response to human rights risks and impacts.

Adidas’ Internal Audit team conducts periodic assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of individual departments and programs, with defined timelines for corrective actions. It reports directly to the CEO and Supervisory Board. As part of this, it evaluates the effectiveness of Adidas’ social compliance monitoring system and human rights due diligence processes and their alignment with policy commitments.

Adidas’ social compliance program is subject to annual third party audits and public disclosure of tracking charts by the Fair Labor Association (available here ), to determine whether supplier-level remediation is being effectively managed by Adidas. The Fair Labor Association also undertakes a periodic accreditation process whereby it evaluates all elements of Adidas’ labour and human rights work. [30]

For its direct supply chain, Adidas utilises social and environmental KPIs to assess the effectiveness of its suppliers’ systems to protect labour rights, worker safety and the environment. For its licensee partners and agents that manage its indirect supply chain, Adidas uses a scorecard that evaluates and scores a business entities performance in applying its Workplace Standards and associated guidelines. KPIs and scorecards assist Adidas to determine strategic suppliers and influence sourcing decisions. However, it is unclear as to how KPIs and scorecards influence such decisions and the extent to which they do so. Further, both factories and business entities and licensees are required to prepare strategic compliance plans on a regular basis outlining their strategies to meet Adidas’ Workplace Standards. Adidas’ SEA team uses these plans to monitor the commitment and compliance practices of its direct and indirect supply chains. [31]

Communicating

Adidas claims to have regular contact with a diverse range of stakeholders, including vulnerable groups, workers in supply chains, local and international NGOs, labour rights advocacy groups, human rights advocacy groups, trade unions, investors, national and international government agencies, and academics. The stakeholders that Adidas engages with depend on the specific issues and trends at the time. It uses its network to pinpoint areas for dialogue and the applicable parties to engage with. It then prioritises stakeholders depending on action radius, relevance, risk, willingness and capacity to engage. The frequency of dialogue can range from monthly to quarterly or annually.

Adidas utilises various channels to communicate its human rights impacts, policies and approaches, including:

• annual Sustainability Progress Report;
• annual Modern Slavery Statements;
• individual stakeholder meetings and correspondence;
• structured stakeholder dialogues;
• public statements;
• collaborative engagements with NGOs;
• multi-stakeholder and partner organizations; and
• one-on-one worker interviews and meetings.

It also uses FAQs and blogs, as an accessible and understandable way for the public and its internal staff, to grasp its human rights work and specific programme initiatives related to worker rights, safety and the environment. [32] Other vehicles for stakeholder engagement include purpose-built fora such as the OECD Advisory Panel for embedding of Business & Human Rights Due Diligence practices into the Apparel and Footwear sector, the Bali Process Business and Government Forum and the Bangladesh Accord. [33]

Adidas seeks to define and tailor the appropriate level of communications needed for a given target audience. For example, with respect to trade unions, it is Adidas standard protocol that its local monitoring staff engage with the factory-level trade union officials or relevant worker representatives to cross check issues that arise during its compliance audits and discuss the necessary remedial actions that the supplier has to follow-up on.

To ensure clear and effective communications with local stakeholders, affected communities and other vulnerable groups, the SEA Team has embedded local staff in Adidas’ key sourcing countries. The team operates in 18 languages, but employs translators where needed for special investigations, stakeholder outreach or communicating outcomes or mechanisms to improve human rights impacts. For example, Adidas has contracted Arabic translators in Turkey to support its communications with Syrian refugees at risk of exploitation in the supply chain. With respect to complaints, phone calls and direct face-to-face meetings will be used to capture issues and provide feedback. Adidas publishes high-level information regarding the status and resolution of complaints through its third party grievance mechanism on its website (see, for example, a summary of the third party complaints handled by Adidas in 2018 here ).

The Gaps Between Paper and Practice

As stated at the outset, brands within the apparel and footwear sector face a plethora of challenges in conducting effective HRDD given the human rights risks inherent in their supply chains. Adidas itself has acknowledged that effective HRDD remains a ‘primary challenge’ of the business, given the ‘breadth and depth of [its] business, which includes tens of thousands of business relationships along a value chain that stretches from smallholders, farming cotton, to the final point of sale in a retail store.’ Nonetheless, Adidas is considered to have leading HRDD practices globally, not only in the apparel sector, but also across the sectors that have been benchmarked to date. [34]

What is clear from a review of Adidas’ human rights approach is that it recognises its responsibility to respect human rights and has sought to take steps to fulfil this obligation along its entire value chain. As part of that, it has developed over a period of over 20 years extensive HRDD practices fleshing out its commitment to upholding human rights. [35] Adidas’ HRDD practices seek to properly identify and assess the human rights risks and impacts that arise in its supply chains, and prevent and mitigate those risks through engagement with suppliers and stakeholders.

Despite this strong commitment and extensive HRDD processes and procedures in its supply chains, Adidas’ human rights track record is not perfect. Over recent years Adidas has featured in headlines where it has been demonstrated that human rights issues exist in its supply chains. Many of these issues relate to the wages paid to its supply chain workers. In 2014, the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) released a profile on Adidas with respect to its practices regarding workers’ living wages. The profile noted that while Adidas was assessing its wages practices across Asia, ‘it [was] still not willing to define what a living wage means in its business’ and had passed on responsibility for wages in supplier factories to factory owners. The CCC called on Adidas to ‘engage in identifying a living-wage figure and changing pricing in order to enable its payment.’ This call to action came after workers in factories that supply to Adidas went on strike in Asia.

In 2014, there was a nationwide strike in Cambodia calling for an increase of the minimum wage for garment workers. Shortly before the strike the CCC reported that the minimum wage in Cambodia at the time did not allow workers to meet their living costs in housing, food, clothing, education, transport and healthcare. During a crackdown in Cambodia, five workers were shot dead and 30 others were injured. Following this event, Adidas backed the development of a minimum wage review mechanism for garment workers. Also in 2014, workers at the Yue Yuen shoe factory in China, an Adidas supplier, went on strike over social security payments and housing fund contributions . In response , Adidas moved some of its orders from the factory in order to ‘minimize the impact on [its] operations’. It did not sever ties with the factory given that ‘China is, and will continue to be, a strategic sourcing country for [it].’ Again in 2015 workers from the same factory went on strike due to changes in its production process , resulting in workers demanding an immediate payout of their housing fund. No information on Adidas’ response to this issue has been located, however, Reuters reported that Adidas did not immediately respond to its request for comment.

The payment of low wages to workers was more recently raised in June last year where Adidas was accused of ‘foul play’ by paying thousands of female workers within its supply chain low wages in order to prepare football shirts and shoes for the Football World Cup that year. In their report , Éthique sur l’étiquette and the CCC compared the costs of Adidas’ current production with that in the 1990s and found that the costs paid to workers had decreased by 30%. Noting that a large proportion of Adidas production occurs in Indonesia, it found that the wages paid to female workers was not sufficient to cover their basic needs, with some women not even receiving the minimum legal wage. The report stated that:

If … Adidas had paid the same amount of dividends in 2017 as they did in 2012, or maintained the level of marketing/sponsorship spending, the resulting proceeds would have allowed for living wages to be paid throughout their entire supply chain in China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Cambodia.

Outside Asia, concerns were also raised in 2016 in relation to the treatment and serious exploitation of Syrian refugees in Turkish supplier factories , including sexual abuse and child labour. As a result, Adidas was called upon by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre to respond to these concerns by completing a questionnaire, Adidas’ response to the questionnaire outlined its policies and procedures with respect to employing Syrian refugees and their treatment in supply chains, noting that it does not have any Syrian refugees working for any of its five Turkish first tier Turkish suppliers.

Similarly concerns were also raised in 2016 and 2017 in relation to the poor working conditions in shoe supply chains in Eastern Europe (see for example the CCC’s reports titled ‘ Labour on a Shoe String ’ and ‘ Europe’s Sweatshops: The results of CCC’s Most Recent Researches in Central, East and South East Europe ’). Adidas was again called upon by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre to respond to a series of questions regarding its efforts and work in the area of sustainability and social responsibility, precisely on sourcing policies with regard to Eastern Europe. In its 2016 response , Adidas defended its engagement with leather tanneries stating that it has ‘a well-tested human rights due diligence process, one which considers the severity of country and industry-level risks within our global supply chain.’ However, it also noted that the sourcing of raw hides and finished leather has been identified as a ‘priority area for further assessment and [its] deeper involvement’. With respect to its footwear manufacturing in Eastern Europe, Adidas stated that ‘more should be done to improve wages’ and ‘engagement between local suppliers, unions, governments, and buyers’ is critical to improving the lives of workers. It did not, however, outline what actions it would take to improve worker wages. In its 2017 response , Adidas set out its general approach to ensuring fair wages in its supply chain and provided an example of the processes it has followed to set wages in Georgia and the Ukraine.

The instances of human / labour rights abuses detailed above demonstrate that despite Adidas’ comprehensive HRDD process, there are failings and gaps in that process that create space for human rights violations to occur in its supply chains. It also shows that the paper-based process detailed in this blog has imperfections in practice that need to be ironed out. Literature has demonstrated that there are often considerable discrepancies between HRDD processes on paper and in practice, highlighting gaps in supply chain governance. For example, Genevieve LeBaron has found through her research on ethical audits and the supply chains of corporations, businesses have ‘claimed supply chain monitoring for themselves’ by using audits as a way to ‘preserve their business model and take responsibility for supply-chain monitoring out of the hands of governments.’ As such, they have been able to avoid ‘stricter state and international regulation’ and to take steps to ensure they are perceived as responsible companies. However, while this is benefiting businesses by giving the impression that businesses are taking active steps on the journey to respect human rights, it is failing workers in supply chains. Human rights violations such as labour abuses are still widespread within supply chains. Therefore, in order to avoid going down this path, businesses need to engage with the issues that are arising in their supply chains, consider the root causes of those issues and make adjustments to HRDD processes.

This review of Adidas’ HRDD process and the gaps identified between the process in theory and in practice raises a number of interesting questions. For example – What precise aspects of Adidas’ identification of risks process are not living up to their expectations allowing human rights violations to continue to occur in its supply chains? What steps are Adidas taking in order to continuously improve its HRDD process? To what extent does Adidas look to or gain inspiration from the practices of its peers? What challenges does Adidas currently face in conducting HRDD in its supply chains and how is it seeking to respond to those challenges?

[1] The information in this blog has been obtained from Adidas’ 2018 submission to the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark and from other Adidas sources. Accordingly, it represents Adidas’ views on its HRDD process.

[2] Human Rights Watch, “Paying for a Bus Ticket and Expecting to Fly”: How Apparel Brand Purchasing Practices Drive Labor Abuses , April 2019.

[3] OECD Due Diligence Guidance For Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector , p 15.

[4] Adidas Annual Report 2018 , p 72.

[5] Adidas Profile .

[6] Adidas Supply Chain Approach .

[7] Adidas Assessment for Re-Accreditation by the Fair Labor Association , p 6.

[8] Adidas Supply Chain Approach .

[11] Adidas Sustainability Report 2010 , p 42

[12] Adidas Enforcement Guidelines , pp 4-5.

[13] Ibid, pp 5-7.

[14] Ibid, p 4.

[15] Adidas Supply Chain Approach .

[16] Adidas Annual Report 2018 , p 96.

[17] Adidas Sustainability Report 2010 , p 49.

[18] Adidas has produced a number of supporting guidelines that aim to ‘make the Workplace Standards understandable and practical, provide additional guidance for [its] suppliers’ and assist in finding effective solutions to workplace problems: Adidas Sustainability Report 2010 , p 44.

[19] Adidas Supply Chain Approach .

[20] Adidas Annual Report 2018 , p 98

[21] Ibid, p 96.

[22] Adidas Supply Chain Approach ; Adidas Annual Report 2018 , pp 98-99

[23] Adidas Supply Chain Approach .

[24] Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, Company Action Platform, Adidas .

[25] Adidas Supply Chain Approach .

[26] Adidas Response to KnownTheChain Apparel and Footwear Benchmark , p 16.

[27] Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, Company Action Platform, Adidas .

[29] Adidas Supply Chain Approach .

[30] Adidas was last re-accredited in 2017.

[31] Adidas Sustainability Report 2010 , p 49

[32] See for example Adidas’ Human Rights and Responsible Business Practices: Frequently Asked Questions .

[33] Adidas Analysis: Cross Section of Stakeholder Feedback 2017/2018 .

[34] See for example: Corporate Human Rights Benchmark 2017 and 2018 ; Know the Chain 2018 ; and Fashion Transparency Index 2019 .

[35] In 1997, Adidas developed its initial supplier code of conduct (Standards of Engagement, now referred to as the Workplace Standards), which formed part of the contractual obligations under manufacturing agreements, and established a Compliance Team. The Standards of Engagement, which are now called Workplace Standards, reflect international human rights and labour rights conventions. A full timeline of Adidas’ social compliance history is accessible here .

Related posts

• The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part III): A Deep Dive into Adidas’ Practices - By Shamistha Selvaratnam @font-face { font-family: Arial; }@font-face { font-family: "Courier New"; }@font-face { ...
• The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part IV): A Deep Dive into Unilever’s Practices - By Shamistha Selvaratnam @font-face { font-family: Arial; }@font-face { font-family: "Courier New"; }@font-face { ...
• The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part I): A Short Genealogy - By Shamistha Selvaratnam Human right due diligence (HRDD) is a key concept of Pillar 2 of the UN Guiding Principles on Busine...

• You are in:

Adidas is the second largest sportswear and sporting goods company worldwide, second only to Nike. Operating in over 160 countries, Adidas has a global reach and extensive supply chain.

Is Adidas ethical?

Our research highlights several ethical issues with Adidas. These include workers’ rights – paying excessively high wages to executives, while failing to pay garment workers in the supply chain enough to cover even basic needs.

Other issues include likely use of tax avoidance strategies, use of controversial technologies, pollution and toxics and animal rights. Below we outline some of these issues. To see the full detailed stories, and Adidas' overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe.

Below we outline of some of these issues. To see the full detailed stories, and Adidas' overall ethical rating, please sign in or  subscribe .

The Clean Clothes Campaign published a report in June 2019, titled ‘ Tailored Wages ’. This assessed whether leading clothing brands were ensuring that garment workers in their supply chains received a living wage.

Adidas received the following rating: “The brand can show no evidence of a Living Wage being paid to any workers”.

The report stated “It is disappointing that a company as influential as Adidas has yet to develop a clear work plan to increase wages in its supplier base. We found no evidence of work to bridge the gap between minimum and living wage.”

A 2018 report by Clean Clothes Campaign and Colectif Ethique Sur L’Etiquette also stated that Adidas was paying poverty wages to women sewing football shirts and shoes in the supply chain.

Much of the brand’s footwear was said to be produced in Indonesia where 80% of garment workers were said to be women earning between 82 and 200 euro per month. It stated that these wages often did not even cover basic needs.

Adidas however scored relatively well in The Fashion Transparency Index 2019 , which reviewed and ranks 200 of the biggest global fashion and apparel brands and retailers according to how much information they disclose about their suppliers, supply chain policies and practices, and social and environmental impact.

Adidas was one of just five brands that scored over 60%. The company received Ethical Consumer’s middle rating for Supply Chain Management.

Environment

In 2020 Adidas received Ethical Consumer’s best rating for Environmental Reporting because it had quantified future environmental targets, an environmental report dated within two years that was independently verified, and showed a reasonable understanding of its main environmental impacts.

In September 2017 WWF published an environment-focused report titled ‘ Changing fashion: The clothing and textile industry at the brink of radical transformation ’. This report rated Adidas as “Upper Midfield”. It was considered to have a good rating on Environmental policy and management systems, Climate change strategy, and Environmental management in the supply chain, a poor rating on Travel and transport and Customer and product responsibility, and average for the remaining criteria.

According to the company’s Annual Report 2019, six out of seven of the Executive Board members at Adidas received over £1m in total compensation in 2019.

The highest paid received a total allocation of approximately £6.5m, and £6m in benefits.

Adidas also had several subsidiaries in jurisdictions Ethical Consumer considered to be tax havens, located in Netherlands, Delaware, Singapore, Taiwan and Mauritius. At least three of these were holding companies, which were considered high risk company types for likely use of tax avoidance strategies.

Controversial Technologies

Adidas was marked down in the Controversial Technologies category because it stated that it used nano-sized structures. Ethical Consumer considered nanotechnology to be a technology that carried potential environmental and health risks, and had not yet been sufficiently established as safe.

Ethical Consumer also found no evidence that Adidas avoided GM cotton in its supply chains . According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit pro biotech organisation, genetically modified cotton accounted for 80% of cotton grown in 2017. As a result, it was assumed that some of the company’s cotton contained some GM materials and Adidas lost half a mark under the Controversial Technology category.

The company stated in its questionnaire response “We offer a variety of products that do not use animal ingredients or animal by-products”. However, Adidas sold products made from or containing leather, wool and down/feathers.

As Adidas is a large company with a high turnover, animal products were considered to be a substantial part of the business. Adidas received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for Animal Rights.

Company information

Company address:.

• Annual revenue: £19,180,000,000
• Website: https://www.adidas-group.com/en/

Contact Adidas

Tweet or email Adidas to let them know what you think of their ethics.

• Tweet a positive message
• Tweet a negative message
• Send a positive email
• Send a negative email

Associated brands

Related product guides.

• Ethical Trainers
• Ethical Sportswear
• Ethical outdoor clothing

Ownership structure

Ethical stories, new ratings from 2024, you are missing out.

The stories for this company are only available to subscribers.

To access all of our tools and data - and get the Ethical Consumer print magazine - start your subscription today.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Adidas: Responsible Management Review 2018

2018, Case Study Analysis

This Responsible Management Audit, looks to determine whether Europe’s largest sportswear manufacturer, Adidas, endeavours to comply with the Ten Principles proposed by the United Nations Global Compact and takes meaningful steps to improve performance, or if the firm simply uses Corporate Social Responsibility Reports as a reputation management tool.

Related Papers

Claire Methven O'Brien , Sumi Dhanarajan

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss a wide range of significant developments that have emerged in the wake of the UNs endorsement of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs) in June 2011. In particular, the paper offers a preliminary assessment of how the GPs’ corporate responsibility to respect human rights has been interpreted and to what extent it has been operationalised through government action, business behaviour and the praxis of other social actors. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a comprehensive assessment of a number of key developments related to Pillar 2 of the GPs – concerned with the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. More specifically, the paper considers a range of elements relating to corporate human rights due diligence, including: establishing a corporate human rights policy; the undertaking of human rights impact assessment; integrating findings of impact assessment, and; corporate human rights reporting. Findings – Based on the assessment of recent developments and initiatives, the paper suggests that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, as expressed in Pillar 2 of the GPs, embodies the culmination of significant progress in the sphere of corporate accountability. In doing so, the paper documents a plethora of innovations in regulation and praxis, led by actors in government and the corporate sector, civil society organisations, labour unions and others, in the areas of human rights due diligence, impact assessment and reporting. Yet overall, change is slow and partial and the results achieved are still unsatisfactory. Severe business-related human rights abuses remain endemic in many industry sectors and in many countries. Research limitations/implications – The implementation of the GPs is at a key stage of development, with a multitude of initiatives and actors attempting to develop and influence new forms of corporate governance. This paper provides an overview and assessment of these key developments. Originality/value – This paper provides an important assessment and synthesis of key developments related to corporate responsibility for human rights. Keywords - Human rights, Supply chain, Impact assessment, Due diligence, Corporate accountability, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Paper type - Conceptual paper

Mustaghis Rahman

The case revolves around the management-labour union relationship in Hinopak Motors, the manufacturer of world renowned Hino diesel trucks and buses in Pakistan. Following UN Global Compact (UNGC) framework; Hinopak is committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption. The process of implementation of UNGC framework started in 2010. It was expected to not only address labour rights issues, but also to take care of the human rights, transparency in businesses and strive for viable work environment at the company. After six years of continuous efforts Hinopak achieved the obvious outcome in terms of congenial work environment but faced pressure on the financials of the firm. The Hinopak management team wonders can a business in Pakistan grow and flourish even after spending on CSR as per the guidelines of UNGC principles.

University of New South Wales Law Journal

TIm Connor , Annie Delaney

Are private human rights mechanisms a worthwhile investment and, if so, how can they be strengthened so as to contribute to continuous improvement in business practices in relation to human rights? A key component of the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is the idea that non-state non-judicial grievance mechanisms and other private regulatory initiatives have an important role to play in augmenting and complementing state-based laws and judicial processes.. This has added fuel to ongoing debates about what private human rights mechanisms can do that state mechanisms cannot, and when and how they work best. One of the biggest gaps in the debate is the lack of detailed empirical research concerning the ways in which communities and workers, particularly in the Global South, are engaging with private regulatory initiatives as part of their efforts to persuade businesses to respect human rights.. This article makes an important contribution by examining a case study of efforts by Indonesian trade unions representing workers producing athletic clothing and footwear (hereafter ‘sportswear’) to claim the right to freedom of association.. The case-study helps to shed light on some of the key variables that affect the extent to which private non-state regulatory initiatives usefully complement or augment state regulation, including factors such as geographic reach, procedural scaffolding and, importantly, governance and control. We observe representatives of workers in these global supply chains engaging in what we have called “regulatory orchestration from below”: drawing on support from international allies and their knowledge of the local political and regulatory context to strategically generate their own pressure on private and public regulatory processes to operate more effectively.. The article provides detailed insights into how intergovernmental organisations, international NGOs and actors in the economic South might coordinate various governance pressures in a manner that facilitates continuous improvement in (and greater coherence between) state and private initiatives.

Journal of Public Affairs

Manuel Castelo Branco

Rosaria Burchielli

Pritii W . Y . Tam

Comprehensive review of Equator Principles compared to United Nations Global Compact and International Council on Mining & Minerals. Assignment for UQ MINE7063 Sustainable Development in the Minerals Industry - Advanc. Tools & Integration. Not publishable and for personal use only

patricia puente

Alexander C Chandra , Thomas Thomas

The Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are collectively undergoing a period of rapid economic development. As ASEAN continues to improve its competitive strength in the business arena and integrates itself into the global economy, there is a need to ensure that standards in corporate governance and accountability, transparency, and legitimacy are to be observed and maintained. Businesses that are based and/or operating in the ASEAN region are increasingly facing expectations to demonstrate that they operate in a responsible manner. Governments in the region are beginning to provide guidance to companies, including through agencies, such as national stock exchanges and corporate regulators, official investment insurance or guarantee agencies, and national human rights institutions (NHRI). Parallel to this development, there is also a growing recognition given to the corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a relevant concept and tool for business entities to promote and protect human rights. In other words, good business practices do not only contribute to the promotion of and respect for human rights, but, conversely, the respect for human rights also makes very good business sense for companies as well as for States. It is against this background that the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) decided to pursue a baseline analysis on the nexus between business and human rights. This Baseline Study on CSR and human rights is part of the Five Years Work Plan of the AICHR,1 which would allow the Commission a better understanding on the emerging human rights‐related issues pertaining to corporate conducts in the ASEAN region.

This report was written to serve as the Background Paper for the 14th Informal ASEM Seminar on Human Rights, organised by the Asia Europe Foundation, the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its purpose is to give an overview of the topic of human rights and business and to provide common foundations for discussion by participants during the 14th Informal ASEM Seminar on Human Rights. Section 1 reflects on the evolution of the business and human rights field. Propelled by community mobilisation and networked social activism during the 1990s and 2000s, a proliferation of transnational corporate accountability norms, standards and initiatives led ultimately to the endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in 2011. Section 1 then recalls some of the central principles and concepts of international human rights law most relevant to area of business and human rights. Section 2 relates developments with regard to business and human rights in the European and Asian regions respectively, including steps taken to implement the UN Guiding Principles specifically. Section 3 addresses the four working group themes: 1. State duty to protect against human rights abuses by businesses 2. Corporate responsibility and its contribution to human rights implementation 3. Monitoring, reporting and access to remedies 4. Multi-stakeholder cooperation The paper concludes by highlighting emerging issues that may influence the business and human agenda in the future.

RELATED PAPERS

Prof. Dr. Luigi Pavone

2008 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference

Lajos Hanzo

Metallurgical Transactions A

Shinn-Tyan Wu

Rocznik Ziem Zachodnich

Ryszard Tomkiewicz

Acta poloniae pharmaceutica

Monika Olszewska

Learned Publishing

georges kiourtzian

David Bredt

IFAC-PapersOnLine

Hussain Khajanchi

Maritza Reina

Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Wayne H.-h. Sheu

Jurnal Abdimas Mutiara

donal nababan

Cardiology in the Young

Aviva Levitas

IRJET Journal

Current Microbiology

MIGUEL ALFONSO VALDELAMAR MORENO

Revista Brasileira de História das Religiões

ARTUR ISAIA

LILIANE CHAGAS

Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences

Mohammad Reza Chaichi

Journal of Computational Physics

Samuel Acosta

Benha Veterinary Medical Journal

Asmaa Mousa

Michel Chouteau

keith's Newsletter on Substack

John Keith Hart

Journal of Intensive Care Medicine

Antoine ELIAS

Jurnal Sosiologi Agama

Ahmad Permata

Ebrahim E . Elsayed

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy . We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Adidas Responds to Backlash From Black Employees: ‘We Will Hold Ourselves Accountable for Change’

Sheena butler-young, deputy editor.

• Share on Facebook
• Share to Flipboard
• Show more sharing options
• Post to Tumblr
• Submit to Reddit
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on WhatsApp
• Print This Page

In a statement this afternoon, Adidas is responding to a new wave of backlash from black employees regarding how the organization supports its black team members and community at-large.

“We’re listening. We recognize that we have not done enough, and we are dedicated to doing more,” the company said. “We are close to finalizing our commitments to ensure our people, most importantly our Black employees, are heard, supported and involved in solutions. We are working very closely with our employee resource group Progressive Soles and a coalition of Black leaders, and we are united in making progress. Together we’re establishing quantifiable goals focused on immediate action and long-term impact, internally and externally. We will hold ourselves accountable for change. We firmly believe that together is the only way to move forward.”

The statement follows news today that a group of about 13 employees last Friday united to form a coalition representing over 100 employees, aimed at yielding swift and permanent change in how the organization supports its black team members and community at-large — with an added emphasis on pushing the brand’s top management in Germany to drive the organizational reset.

FN learned that on Tuesday the group delivered to Adidas North America management, including president Zion Armstrong, a 32-page deck, dubbed “Our State of Emergency.”

In addition to claims that management “doesn’t grasp the discrimination minorities might face” and that “the difference in perception is largest in Germany,” the document listed four major “asks.” The coalition wants the company to: invest in its black employees; invest in the black community; invest in the fight for racial justice and change for black people; and demonstrate accountability.

Each of the group’s requests have specific KPIs (key performance indicators) as well as proposed deadlines.

The coalition had also given the company’s management a deadline of today to make an internal announcement of its commitment as well as timeline of June 19 for a “global media announcement.”

FN has also learned that the company honored the deadline for providing an internal announcement, sending to employees this morning a statement matching the one sent to this publication.

“Adidas has always been and will always be against discrimination in all forms and stands against racism,” part of the statement reads. “We are deeply saddened by what we see happening to our Black community in America. Racism is an issue that exists not only in the U.S., but in all countries. We all want to see justice, action, peace, and most importantly, progress. As a global sports company, adidas is committed to creating change.”

The company further noted that is had been communicating with employees throughout the week “to listen and understand and respect the range of emotions we are all going through” and that it has provided support and resources. It said that all leaders in North America and in its Global HQ attended educational sessions to learn how to lead through the current national crisis.

“Our online donation platform, DEED, provides the opportunity for 200% matching of employee donations to support organizations that are working on the frontlines of anti-racism and actively working to support our Black communities,” the company added.

Adidas said an update on its plans would be available first to employees then to the public some time next week.

The formation of the coalition is only the latest diversity and inclusion battle Adidas has faced over the past two years. Just yesterday, FN reported on a planned employee protest , scheduled for today, where workers (who may or may not be a part of the coalition) planned to call out the company for a purported discrepancy between the its external messaging and its internal actions.

Some employees told FN that public actions taken by Adidas this week — including an anti-racism post on its own Instagram page as well as a historic  retweet of longtime rival Nike’s video  calling for an end to racial injustice — ran counter to the way it has long dealt with staffers at its own North America campus.

“My existence at this brand is praised as diversity and inclusion, but when I look around, I see no one above or around that looks like me,” wrote Julia Bond, an assistant designer for Adidas Originals apparel, in a note she said she sent to Adidas’ North American leadership on Wednesday. “I can no longer stand for Adidas’ consistent complacency in taking active steps against a racist work environment. This is not business as usual.”

For her part, Bond is requesting that Adidas issue a public apology “for the racism and discrimination that they have openly enabled and perpetuated” and said that she and several colleagues would protest every day after until the apology is issued. (It is unclear the manner in which they would be protesting.)

The marked uprising this week follows a series of major reports on D&I issues at Adidas. In an FN exclusive report in November 2018, multiple sources — identifying as racial and ethnic minorities — said that leaders at the German athletic brand’s Portland, Ore.-headquarters had failed to promote and treat people of color fairly.

“North America senior leaders foster, encourage and reward an exclusive all-white environment made up of the same individuals that are consistently promoted and spotlighted,” said one employee at the time, who accused leaders of the brand of withholding opportunities from African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics and other minorities while unjustly promoting their white counterparts. “They ostracize people of color and cultivate a high school ‘clique’ environment.”

Since then, similar accusations against the brand have surfaced from members of the LGBTQ community who described instances of alleged discrimination on the part of the company.

Adidas told FN in June 2019 that is was making progress on certain diversity and inclusion issues and that it recently expanded its Diversity and Inclusion team in North America to “focus on underrepresented communities in our workforce across the talent lifecycle.” It also said at the time that it conducts “ongoing workplace inclusion education and training for employee

Most Popular

You may also like.

The Adidas Runner321 Campaign

• Post author By asherwoo
• Post date January 15, 2023

By Celina Aalders, Taylor Adair, Emily Koppers and Alex Madill

Our communications case study looked at the Adidas Runner 321 ad campaign. The number 321 represents Trisomy 21, which is the medical identifier for Down Syndrome. Accordingly, the campaign calls on marathons to hold bib #321 for runners with Down Syndrome and/or “other neurodivergent athletes.”

The campaign was strategically launched on March 21, 2022, which is World Down Syndrome Day. The campaign was centered around one main video featuring Chris Nikic, Adidas’ very first sponsored athlete with Down Syndrome. Adidas produced this video in collaboration with FCB Canada, as well as the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. The goal of the campaign was to encourage representation and inclusivity in mainstream sports. By having Nikic as the ambassador for this message, other athletes with disabilities would hopefully be inspired to follow their dreams too. 

Adidas and FCB understood the responsibility they had to ensure that this campaign was carried out in a respectful manner, specifically toward folks in the disability community. Andrew MacPhee, the Executive Creative Director at FCB Canada states, “we were conscious of not creating a sense of otherness in the way we portrayed Chris. The work needed to showcase Chris with the same respect and stature as any other Adidas sponsored athlete.” We would argue that the campaign was successful in doing so. 

With the support of Adidas, Nikic ran the 2022 Boston Marathon sporting the #321 bib. By tackling the Boston Marathon, one of the top five most famous marathons in the world, 3 Adidas was able to get their key messages of representation and inclusion out to an extremely wide audience. The goal here was also to inspire other marathons to follow suit in reserving the #321 bib for a runner with a neurological disability.  

The campaign has some critical missteps. As we analyzed the various components of Adidas’s strategy, tokenism, inspiration porn and isolation stood out to us. Furthering the discussion with our classmates was an aid to our materials, as they presented us with perspectives we hadn’t considered yet.  

Tokenism is a major concern in this campaign. The focus of the campaign zoning in one runner and one specific bib number presents multiple opportunities for tokenism to be abused. The campaign specifically calls for races to hold bib #321 for a neurodivergent athlete.

Through this strategy of emphasizing the one bib for an athlete with down syndrome, it may leave organizations with the impression that if they include that one athlete, then they have done their part. This is not a long-term option for creating accessibility in sport.  

Inspiration porn is defined by Stella Young as “making people feel good in a not-so-good political climate” 4 . A major aspect of inspiration porn is appealing to the viewer’s emotional reaction. Adidas is taking advantage of an outdated stereotype that views individuals with disabilities as lesser-than. This is a manipulative tactic and can take advantage of athletes with disabilities. These athletes are just as capable as anyone else in taking part in these races. The campaign has been framed in a way that wants to push inspiration porn onto the consumer, and Adidas is profiting from that.  

The goals that Adidas set for this campaign centered around increasing representation in the sports community. One of the first issues presented here is that they use terminology such as “neurodivergent.” This is an umbrella term and with the campaign’s emphasis on athletes with Down Syndrome, using that terminology can take away from the original focus.

As discussed by our peers, using the term “neurodivergent” can be damaging to individuals with disabilities. By having races save one singular bib for a runner with Down Syndrome, it does create a semblance of isolation. Isolating and calling out that one runner with a specialized bib is not a common practice. It does not lead to the most inclusive practice.  

This campaign had its pros and cons, while we focused on the negatives of the campaign, they did do some things well. One of the major positives of their work was the collaboration with other groups. This ranged from outside ad agencies to the Canadian Down Syndrome Society.

It is valuable for organizations to work with thought leaders and representatives of the communities that their campaigns are focused on. Adidas did this well,  and continued to highlight their athletes in their typical style. There is room for improvement, as with anything, but overall Adidas executed a campaign that could have a positive impact.

Discussion Questions

• Where should the line be drawn between representation and isolation in this case? Does Adidas’s tactic cause more harm than good?  
• What could Adidas have done differently to encourage inclusion and accessible practices in their campaign?  
• A concern with this campaign is the lack of longevity, what is a suggestion that could help the campaign to become more sustainable and have a larger reach?  
• How can companies avoid the danger of inspiration porn while still producing a campaign that can inspire their audience?  

Bibliography

Brown, David. “Why #321 Represents Athletic Inclusivity for Adidas and FCB.” The Message. March 22, 2022. https://the-message.ca/2022/03/22/why-321-represents-athletic-inclusivity-for-adidas-and-fcb/ .  

Jones, Chelsea Temple. “Why This Story Over a Hundred Others of the Day’ Five Journalists’ Backstories About Writing Disability in Toronto.” Disability & Society 29, no. 4. (June 2014): 1206-1220. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09687599.2014.916608 .  

Lu, Wendy. “What Journalists can do Better to Cover the Disability Beat.” Columbia Journalism Review . September 5, 2017. https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/journalism-disability-beat.php .  

“The Big 5- Make Your New Goal One or All.” World’s Marathons. January 13, 2013. https://worldsmarathons.com/article/big-five-marathons#:~:text=It%20refers%20to%20the%20biggest,London%20and%20New%20York%20City .   

By asherwoo

MMJC, 2017 Fall

Brand Ratings

• How We Rate
• Download the App
• Dresses & Playsuits
• Basics & Intimates
• Sweaters & Knitwear
• Accessories
• In the Know
• Partnerships

How Ethical Is Adidas?

Share for change

Our editors curate highly rated brands that are first assessed by our rigorous ratings system. Buying through our links may earn us a commission—supporting the work we do. Learn more .

Adidas is the second largest activewear brand in the world after competitor Nike. But how ethical is Adidas when it comes to sustainability, labour rights, and animal welfare? This article is based on Adidas’ “Not Good Enough” rating published in November 2023. It may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory .

How does Adidas rate on Good On You in 2024?

The fashion industry is always changing, and our ratings are evolving with it. We regularly update our methodolog y to stay on top of emerging issues, ensuring our ratings are relevant, useful, and timely, so that you can always make the best choices for yourself.

Adidas has also evolved over the years. From humble beginnings in 1949 in Bavaria, Germany, the sportswear giant (founded by Adolf Dassler, the brother of Puma founder Rudolf Dassler) has grown into the second-largest activewear brand in the world after Nike . It is known and loved for its iconic Stan Smith sneakers, logo sweatshirts, tees, and sportswear, worn by athletes all over the world.

How does Adidas rate on Good On You in 2024? How ethical is Adidas?

Environmental impact

One change in our methodology has been to allocate extra points for the setting of science-based carbon emission reduction targets, and while Adidas has set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its own operations and supply chain, it’s not on track to meet this target.

Science-based targets currently represent the highest standard when setting a greenhouse gas emissions target. To set them, Adidas and other brands will have allocated a large amount of resources, data collection, and time to provide the relevant information to demonstrate said target is aligned with a 1.5 or 2 degree global temperature reduction pathway. However, it is also important for brands to demonstrate how they intend to meet the targets and their current tangible progress.

Speaking of targets, Adidas has set a target to eliminate hazardous chemicals by 2025 and claims it’s on track. Adidas also scored a B for its Carbon Disclosure Project climate and water questionnaires. Brands that we have rated “Good” this year for the environment tend to be scoring A or A-, so there’s a clear discrepancy here, and Adidas needs to put in the work to raise its score.

While the brand does take some (limited) steps to prevent deforestation by avoiding raw materials listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species , it falls short of publishing its own policies, particularly on materials linked to deforestation, such as leather. We also found no evidence Adidas has policies to protect biodiversity in its supply chain—another key issue in our methodology.

We found no evidence Adidas has policies to protect biodiversity in its supply chain—a key issue in our methodology.

Adidas was also penalised for misleading consumers over environmental claims in 2021. ​​ According to the French Jury de Déontologie Publicitaire (JDP), Adidas’ “Stan Smith Forever. 100% iconic, 50% recycled” campaign broke advertising rules and misled consumers. The brand didn’t inform consumers of the total proportion of the shoe that is recycled and was misleading in its use of the “End plastic waste” logo. The JDP also noted that the claim of “50% recycled” gives shoppers the impression that 50% of the total material used in the trainer is made of recycled materials, which isn’t true. The message is ultimately confusing to consumers and makes it hard to determine what’s legit and what’s not. A clear case of greenwashing .

As a result, Adidas’ environmental rating has stayed “It’s a Start”. The brand’s use of some lower-impact materials—including recycled materials—and its research with industry bodies on the impact of microplastics are not enough to compensate for the lost points discussed above.

Labour conditions

Adidas’s labour rating has unfortunately dropped from “It’s a Start” to “Not Good Enough” in its most recent rerate, indicating it’s falling behind on critical industry issues. People are the backbone of the fashion industry, and brands need to take tangible actions to protect workers. Our methodology rewards brands that provide fair and safe working conditions over the brands that simply audit suppliers.

Adidas received a score of 51-60% in the Fashion Transparency Index , which is okay, but lower than its previous score of 61-70%. Adidas’ social auditing program has been accredited by the FLA Workplace Code of Conduct including all of the final stage of production. The brand also disclosed policies to protect workers in its supply chain from the impacts of COVID-19 during the height of the pandemic.

Worryingly, the area where Adidas has still a long way to go is ensuring workers in its supply chain are paid a living wage. The Foul Play report by the Clean Clothes Campaign and Collectif Ethique sur l’Etiquette highlight the difference between the ever-increasing amount of money paid for sponsorships to sports stars and other marketing expenses, compared to the reduction of the share of the final price of your sports gear paid to workers in the supply chain. Adidas does have a project to improve wages in a part of its supply chain, and has made a public commitment to improve wages in its supply chain, however, we found no evidence the brand ensures payment of a living wage in most of its supply chain.

Adidas still has a long way to go in ensuring workers throughout its supply chain are paid a living wage.

Since 2020, we’ve been noting allegations of brands’ involvement in the human rights abuses taking place against Uighur people in China’s Xinjiang Province. We take them into account in our ratings and have penalised brands named in reports by various human rights and news organisations. While Adidas has made moves away from production in the region, and pledged to boycott cotton from Xinjiang , there’s a lot more to the issue. We know this is an important question for many of you and we’ll keep an eye on Adidas and other brands as the situation evolves. The brand was also linked to human rights violations in Cambodia in 2020, though in November 2023, the brand’s supplier in the country agreed to reinstate and backpay workers who had previously been sacked for forming a union and campaigning for better working conditions.

Animal welfare

Adidas’ animal rating remains “Not Good Enough”. It now has a formal animal welfare policy (an improvement from its last rating) aligned with Five Freedoms, but has no clear mechanisms to implement it. It does not use fur , exotic animal hair, or angora , but it is still using down . Adidas also still uses exotic animal skin and leather , including kangaroo leather —an emerging animal welfare issue, which has led the brand to be condemned by some activists in the US as a new bill was introduced in 2021 to outlaw the sale of kangaroo body parts in the country (which ultimately did not make it through congress to be enacted).

Adidas states that it has a policy to source wool from non-mulesed sheep but does not provide evidence to verify its claims. Although the brand traces some animal-derived materials to the first production stage, that doesn’t compensate for its ongoing use of controversial materials in its products.

Overall rating: ‘Not Good Enough’

So, how ethical is Adidas in 2024? Adidas’ overall rating is “Not Good Enough”.

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 (most of which are not made from preferred 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.

Adidas still has a way to go before it can be considered a responsible brand. It could start by ensuring its suppliers are paying living wages to workers. With €22.5 billion net sales in 2022 , this should not be a problem.

It’s worth noting that of the thousands of brands that Good On You has rated, only a handful of large brands have achieved an overall rating of “Good”. For those who have previously purchased Adidas based on our ratings, note that it still remains one of the higher-scoring large brands and is in the top 10%—particularly on environmental issues—though we acknowledge it still has a long way to go.

So this score doesn’t mean you should get rid of your Adidas clothes and kicks. On the contrary, cherish what you already own: as we know, keeping our clothes for longer is one of the most sustainable things we can do.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information see our How We Rate page and our FAQs .

See the rating .

If you want to shop more in line with your values, Good On You recommends you support brands that embrace a slow fashion model. We’ve rounded up a few of our favourite similar brands to Adidas.

Here’s our list of “Good” and “Great” alternatives to Adidas.

Thanks to recycled materials like rescued ocean plastic, Ecoalf creates more sustainable fashion with the same quality, design, and technical properties as the best non-recycled ones.

Find the range in sizes XS-2XL.

Shop Ecoalf @ Farfetch .

Shop Ecoalf .

Iron Roots is a Dutch sportswear brand that makes all its apparel from plant-based fabrics. Its pieces effortlessly combine more responsible design and functionality.

Find most items in sizes XS-2XL.

Shop Iron Roots .

CARIUMA is a more sustainable Brazilian sneaker brand that wants you to feel super comfortable while providing effortless style in organic canvas, leather, and suede styles.

Find CARIUMA's shoes in US sizes 5-13.

Shop CARIUMA .

Flamingos’ Life

Flamingos' Life creates sneakers that are free from animal-derived materials for everyone. The brand uses lower-impact and PETA approved vegan materials, including upcycled materials.

Find the range in sizes 36-46.

Shop Flamingos' Life .

MATE the Label

MATE the Label creates clean essentials made with GOTS certified organic fabrics and lower-impact dyes. Its goal is to offer women everywhere a clean product that is just as beautiful as it is responsible. It is proudly female-founded and is predominately operated by women. This US brand also manufactures locally to reduce its carbon footprint.

Find the range in inclusive sizes XS-3XL.

Shop MATE the Label .

Threads 4 Thought

Threads 4 Thought uses a range of lower-impact materials including TENCEL™ Modal harvested from the limbs of beech trees. This process means that the trees are never cut down and 95% of the production materials to make the yarn are recovered and reused. The brand's manufacturers are a combination of Fair Trade USA certified and Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production certified.

Find the range in sizes XS-XL, with an extended sizing range up to 3XL.

Shop Threads 4 Thought .

Tripulse – Leggings

These leggings are perfect for warmer days and intense workouts, made from smooth and naturally cooling eucalyptus wood TENCEL™ Lyocell. Bundle and save 10% on the Next Gen sports bra and Pro leggings with code TRIPULSEBUNDLE10. (Ends: 2 MAY)

Tripulse – Sports Bra

Stay fresh in the Next Gen sports bra that combines minimalist design with clever functionality, made from eucalyptus fabric TENCEL™ Lyocell. Bundle and save 10% on the Next Gen sports bra and Pro leggings with code TRIPULSEBUNDLE10. (Ends: 2 MAY)

Tripulse is a Swedish activewear brand on a mission to create high-performing activewear that protects our planet and its people. The brand believes that fitness, both physical and mental, is the foundation for a good and healthy life and gives people the courage to live the life they dreamed of, to become their best selves, to make bold moves, and to change the world for the better.

Find most items in sizes XS-3XL.

Shop Tripulse .

Biehler is a high-quality cycling clothing brand based in Germany. Its use of lower-impact materials and local manufacturing reduce its carbon footprint.

Find most items in sizes 2XS-3XL.

Shop Biehler .

Veja is a French brand designing ecological and fair trade footwear, and is also a responsible fashion pioneer. The brand uses lower-impact materials, like GOTS certified cotton and vegetable-tanned leather. Veja pays its co-operative cotton growers and rubber tappers between 30% and 100% above the world market price . By not advertising, Veja is able to invest more money into strengthening its practices.

You can find Veja shoes in women's EU sizes 35-46, and men's 35-47.

Shop Veja .

Shop Veja @ Cerqular .

Shop Veja @ LVRSustainable .

Shop Veja @ Outerknown .

Shop Veja @ Threads 4 Thought .

Shop Veja Kids second hand @ Retykle .

Fashion and responsible production can go together and Womsh is the brand that proves it. Its shoes are entirely designed and manufactured in Italy, and its clothing range is made from lower-impact fabrics like organic cotton.

Find most shoes in EU sizes 35-42, and clothes in XS-2XL.

Shop Womsh .

Ambiletics is a more sustainable sports and yoga label from Munich. The brand is convinced that every (purchase) decision makes a difference. In the fashion sector in particular, far too little attention is paid to origin and production. Ambiletics wants to change this, so its motto is: MAKE IT MATTER.

Find most items in sizes XS-XL.

Shop Ambiletics .

ID.EIGHT is an Italian brand that was born from the meeting between Dong Seon Lee and Giuliana Borzillo, both come from the world of footwear, where they worked and met. Together they have created a more ethical and sustainable collection of sneakers with a refined design. The shoes are made in Italy with lower-impact materials from food industry waste such as apple peels, grape stalks and seeds, and pineapple leaves, as well as recycled cotton and polyester.

Find the shoes in EU sizes 36-46.

Shop ID.EIGHT .

dk active is an Australian high-performance brand. It uses renewable energy in its supply chain to reduce its climate impact, and reuses all of its offcuts to minimise textile waste. It is also a PETA approved 100% vegan brand.

Find the products in sizes XS-2XL.

Shop dk active .

One of responsible French brand caur’s six core values is gender neutrality. It says “The goal is not to erase gender, but to reduce the impact of gender stereotypes that accompany gender labels.” Couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

Find the range in sizes 2XS-2XL.

Shop caur .

Pressio is a UK brand that seeks to provide truly world-leading, revolutionary performance sportswear built upon an uncompromised responsible approach.

Find most items in sizes 2XS-2XL.

Shop Pressio .

Discover the top rated more ethical and sustainable activewear brands

Editor's note.

Feature image via Unsplash, all other images via brands mentioned. Good On You publishes the world’s most comprehensive ratings of fashion brands’ impact on people, the planet, and animals. Use our directory to search thousands of rated brands.

Festival Style, Done More Sustainably

Timelessness over trends: april’s top picks from the good on you team, the ultimate guide to more ethical and sustainable children’s clothing, better brand edit: more sustainable puff sleeve tops and dresses, ethical brand ratings. there’s an app for that..

Wear the change you want to see. Download our app to discover ethical brands and see how your favourites measure up.

We’ll send you the goods.

Get the Good On You newsletter to go deeper into fashion’s most critical issues.

Is Adidas Sustainable & Ethical?

We weigh up the social and environmental impacts of adidas as an athleisure and activewear giant in the clothing industry..

Written by Mariah Feria

Edited & Fact Checked By Amber McDaniel

Updated June 21, 2023

Adidas’ Sustainability & Ethics Snapshot 

> learnings for business.

Adidas has the resources to drive sustainability advancements in its products, manufacturing process, and supply chain.

The Adidas sustainability report details its investments in greener alternatives, including initiatives like using recycled materials and renewable energy, and what steps it has taken to further reduce its carbon footprint. These actions encourage other businesses to follow and improves their standing among eco conscious consumers. 

Regarding Adidas’ ethics , the company has recently committed to improving diversity at a corporate level and addressed some accusations concerning unfair labor practices, though there is still a significant lack of proof of Adidas corporate social responsibility and provision of fair wages.

> Learnings for consumers

Adidas has improved its sustainable offerings in recent years and is taking steps towards becoming more eco-friendly, but there are still numerous Adidas ethical issues —both human and animal—for the ethical consumer to contend with. However, given Adidas’ vast chain of supply and history of worker’s rights infringement, we’d encourage purchasing from smaller, more ethically conscious and sustainable activewear brands instead.  

Who Is Adidas?

Adidas is a market leader in activewear, competing with Nike for the most valuable sports brand title in the world.

But is Adidas sustainable?

Or is Adidas fast fashion that should be avoided at all costs?

In 2022, The Adidas Group turned over €22,511 billion (or $24.418 billion), making it the largest sporting goods manufacturer in Europe and the second biggest in North America.

As consumers seek more environmentally friendly and ethical purchases, they look at how companies address workers’ welfare, animal rights, and social impact.

Over 80% of US consumers consider a brand’s sustainability and ethical practices when buying an item—a statistic not to be ignored.

Despite this, around two-thirds of retailers believe customers won’t pay more for greener or fairer products, instead perpetuating the fashion industry’s worst trends: air and chemical pollution, tremendous textile waste, and staff exploitation .

At the forefront of sports apparel, understanding Adidas’ environmental and social impact is crucial.

In recent years, Adidas has set ambitious and innovative targets to lessen its environmental impact, utilize recyclable materials, eliminate single use plastic, reduce GHG emissions and support green technologies. While a growing number of Adidas products are sustainable material-based, many still have a long way to go.

However, while the brand appears to be making genuine efforts towards sustainability, Adidas’ ethical issues are apparent.

Like many global companies, the brand regularly encounters exploitation and discrimination accusations. Although it has taken steps to address these, it’s too early to know if its efforts have been successful or how ethical Adidas is today.

Observation over the next five years will reveal a lot regarding whether “Adidas is All In” (as their slogan purports) to becoming an ethical and sustainable business or not.

Still, Adidas’ public efforts to acknowledge and address their shortcomings demonstrate at a degree of awareness and sets an example for other large brands to follow suit.

Let’s take a closer look.

What We Cover: Is Adidas Sustainable & Ethical?

• Adidas Sustainability & Transparency Reporting
• Adidas Environmental Impact: Is Adidas A Sustainable Company?
• Adidas Social Impact: Is Adidas Ethical?
• Adidas Controversies, Red Flags & Greenwashing
• Is Nike Or Adidas More Sustainable?

1. Adidas Sustainability & Transparency Reporting

You can find the Adidas sustainability report as part of its annual report , which outlines Adidas’ primary achievements over the last 12 months alongside current sustainability focuses.

Recent reports have detailed Adidas’ efforts to combat plastic waste through clean-up activities and products made from recycled items.

Other Adidas eco-friendly highlights include the company’s involvement in the circular economy, using more natural and renewable materials, and charitable initiatives. But is Adidas an eco-friendly company on the whole? If so, how sustainable is Adidas?

2. Adidas Environmental Impact: Is Adidas A Sustainable Company?

Adidas inevitably has a significant impact as one of the world’s largest and most widely worn clothing labels.

To understand if Adidas qualifies as a sustainable brand, we need to analyze how the company reduces this impact.

How sustainable is Adidas’ Supply Chain & Manufacturing

Adidas has been working to improve the sustainability of its supply chain and manufacturing processes in recent years through several initiatives, collaborations, and expectations.

One such initiative is the company’s partnership with the “Better Cotton Initiative,” which promotes sustainable cotton production worldwide. However, BCI cotton itself has been scrutinized for numerous greenwashing accusations , which begs the question if this is a boon or bust to Adidas’ sustainability.

According to the 2020 Sustainable Cotton Ranking, 99% of the cotton used in Adidas’ products in 2018 was “sustainably sourced”, though given the lack of details as to what this means combined with cotton industry fraud this number should not be taken as fact.

Adidas has also tried to reduce its carbon footprint, particularly in its supply chain. Using science-based reduction targets, the company has set a goal to become entirely carbon-neutral by 2050 .

To help achieve this, the brand outlines expectations of its suppliers’ decarbonization efforts, covering areas such as:

• Sustainable materials
• Low-carbon products and technologies
• Transparency and traceability
• Clean energy sources

Various organizations have recognized the brand’s sustainability efforts in manufacturing.

Adidas’ Fabrics & Materials

Adidas has incorporated more sustainable and innovative materials into its products over the last few years.

Some of these include recycled polyester, BCI or organic cotton, and materials made from ocean plastic.

In 2022, over 96% of all polyester used was recycled polyester made of plastic bottles and textile waste. Consumers can identify products made with recycled materials via the “Primeblue” and “Primegreen” labels.

The brand has partnered with Parley for the Oceans since 2015 to create products made from recycled ocean plastic.

Its “ Made To Be Remade ” (MTBR) is a product line made to be worn, returned to Adidas, shredded and ground down, and remade into something new. In 2021, the brand increased its MTBR range, launching fully recyclable versions of Adidas sustainable shoes and apparel.

Adidas recently revealed the result of its Allbirds collaboration, a running shoe with its lowest-ever carbon footprint—2.94 kg of CO 2 to make.

Is Adidas a cruelty-free and vegan company?

While not yet entirely vegan, Adidas has started producing cruelty-free versions of its products. Alternatives of several classics, such as the vegan Adidas Stan Smith , were launched in 2020.

The brand has recently attempted to make a new material—a purely natural leather alternative made from mycelium—for its footwear.

Adidas has also committed to “ Vier Pfoten ”, an animal protection organization, to ban furs from its products.

However, on the whole, their animal welfare policies leave much to be desired. Adidas still uses significant amounts of leather, down, wool, and exotic animal skins (such as kangaroo leather). 

While Adidas claims any wool is from non-muelsed sources and that they followed the Five Freedoms of animal welfare, there are no certifications (such as ZQ merino or Responsible Wool Standard) or evidence to back up  these claims.

What Are Adidas’ Carbon Reductions & Commitments?

Adidas has made several commitments to reduce its carbon footprint.

The company aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% across the entire value chain by 2030.

Also by 2025, Adidas is targeting a 15% water consumption intensity reduction within its own operations and 40% across the wider supply chain.

Currently, it has reduced CO 2 emissions by 26% and water usage by 21% since 2017 .

They’re also aiming for a 15% GHG emissions reduction per product and to make 9 out of 10 Adidas products sustainable by 2025, meaning they will be made “to a significant degree” with “environmentally preferred materials”. However, they fail to define specifics for either qualifier.

By 2030, Adidas has set a 30% emission reduction target across its whole supply chain.

While these are promising commitments and show the brand’s apparent intentions, it’s unclear how close Adidas is to reaching these overall targets. However, they recently scored an A- and B respectively on Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP, the not-for-profit who helps organizations manage their environmental reporting and disclosure) climate and water questionnaires.

3. Adidas Social Impact: Is Adidas Ethical?

Adidas’ ethics are complicated.

While the company has taken steps to address its history of ethical problems, large-scale issues surrounding Adidas’ working conditions and fair wage standards remain.

Adidas’ Labor Practices

First, where is Adidas manufactured?

Per their most recent 2020 Global Management Report , they worked with 132 independent manufacturing partners around the globe (Asia, North and South America, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa), significantly down from 277 in 2019. 

Halving manufacturing entities is a significant step towards greater traceability and control, though lack of a more recent report means we don’t know if this trend has continued across more recent years.

Adidas scored 128 (51%) in the 2022 Fashion Transparency Index (FTI), down from 136 (54%) the previous year. The FTI rates the ethical performance of worldwide brands, particularly concerning workers’ welfare and labor practices.

For reference, 51% puts Adidas in the same bracket as other fashion giants like Nike, Lululemon, Calvin Klein, and Converse. Only a handful of the total assessed brands fall into the two higher brackets, with the highest transparency scores still no more than 78%.

The company is a member of the Fair Labor Association (FLA), a nonprofit organization that works to improve labor conditions in global supply chains.

As a member, Adidas’ Code of Conduct is reflective of the FLA’s, which includes standards on fair wages, working hours, and safe working conditions. 

While this shows Adidas’ commitment to ethical worker treatment in its downstream operations, tier 2 and 3 raw material suppliers and fabric mills remain outside the scope of FLA audits.

Does Adidas use ethical labor?

Besides sharing policies on protecting supply chain workers from COVID-19 during the pandemic, Adidas has been criticized for its labor practices and living wage payment in its global supply chain. The company has been accused of using sweatshop labor and exploiting workers in certain countries.

In 2020, Adidas and other notable brands (like Nike and Apple) were linked to forced Uighur labor . The company claimed it had no contractual relationships with the suppliers, but could not rule out a link further down the supply chain.

The Clean Clothes Campaign highlighted that textile workers across 114 factories in Cambodia, who produced garments for Adidas, were owed an estimated $109 million (USD) in wages in April–May 2021. 

The campaign has continuously called on Adidas to sign the Pay Your Workers agreement, regularly criticizing the brand’s public plans to prioritize and protect workers’ rights.

Adidas’ human rights and labor practices also have a history of worker abuse and sexual harassment, particularly against women.

Adidas Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI)

Adidas has faced employee complaints over a lack of diversity and unfair treatment in the workplace.

A top executive at Adidas received a “ final warning ” from the company after repeated “inappropriate and unacceptable” remarks about diversity in the workplace.

Workers at the US headquarters in Portland said a lack of diversity at Adidas created a discriminatory working environment , leaving some employees feeling marginalized. In 2019, only 4.5% of 1,700 workers identified as Black.

Diverse employees at Adidas rated the company 63/100 across Comparably ’s culture categories, placing the company in the bottom 35% of companies with over 10,000 staff members.

The company responded to diversity criticism with high-level exits and several internal initiatives, research, and training groups.

Adidas has established employee resource groups (ERGs) that promote diversity and inclusion, such as the Black Employee Network and the LGBTQ+ ERG.

To improve the Adidas code of ethics , it launched the ‘Global DEI Council’ in 2021, increasing representation, retention, and advancement of diverse talents within its workforce. 

It is responsible for business ownership and accountability on DEI initiatives, promising to invest $120 million toward ending racism and supporting US Black communities through 2025.

They’ve also pledged to fund 50 university scholarships annually for Black and Latino students.

Adidas aims to fill at least 30% of all new US-based positions with Black and Latino people, and to increase the share of women in management positions or above to 40% by 2025. By the end of 2020, it was 35% .

Is Adidas A Socially Responsible Company?

If so, how is Adidas socially responsible?

Adidas’ corporate responsibility is demonstrated in its many initiatives, supporting the community in sports, education, and sustainability.

These initiatives reflect the company’s goals of making a positive impact beyond its core business operations.

Adidas’ primary focus is sports, thus the company’s projects, programs, and partnerships help make sports more accessible, such as building playground and sports courts, fundraising campaigns, and virtual events.

For example, collaborations with the Boston Athletic Association and Girls on the Run provide running programs for local youth and girls in low-income communities.

The company also partnered with Allbirds, providing sneakers to students in need.

4. Adidas Controversies, Red Flags & Greenwashing

Adidas was accused of greenwashing by an ethics jury. Its “Stan Smith Forever. 100% iconic, 50% recycled” advertisement’s use of the “End plastic waste” logo was deemed misleading.

The jury reached this verdict because, despite the slogan, 50% of the total material used in the shoe isn’t made from recycled items .

While Adidas has publicly addressed concerns surrounding labor exploitation many accusations remain.

Inappropriate comments, behavior, and attitudes at the corporate level – particularly discrimination issues —are another red flag.

Finally, while the company clearly communicates its goals towards sustainability, there is a lack of key performance indicators (KPIs); measuring their real-world progress is not an exact science.

5. Is Nike Or Adidas More Sustainable?

As the two biggest activewear brands, Nike and Adidas are regularly compared—but is Adidas more ethical than Nike? Is Nike sustainable at all?

In terms of sustainability and ethics, Adidas usually wins.

While Nike (with greater resources) invests more money in sustainability programs than its closest competition, Adidas better considers its overall environmental impact.

Greenpeace has criticized Nike for its continued use of hazardous chemicals in its supply chain, saying that other brands are phasing out chemical use faster.

While Adidas is currently the more sustainable sportswear brand, both companies lack transparency and independent certifications for sustainability measures and results.

Subscribe to the Sustainly Newsletter

Get weekly insights, guides and news to support our collective transition to a better, more sustainable future.

More from Sustainly...

19 Of The Best Sustainability Documentaries To Watch For A Better World

By Shelby Wesloe

The Best Sustainable Banks: How Ethical Banking Is Changing The Financial Landscape

By Hailey Carrillo

10 Sustainable Food Brands & Companies Laying It All On The Table

By Jenny Bell

Is Nike Sustainable & Ethical?

Why Are The SDGs Important For Business? A Guide To Integration

By Mariah Feria

A Snapshot Look At Sharing Economy Sustainability

By Molly Willows

Sustainable Smart Technology: How Innovative Green Tech Can Save Our Planet

By Caitlin Neaves

The Complete Guide To Social Media Sustainability

Sustainly is a member of the Sustainable Jungle Network and a member of One Percent For The Planet. Learn more here .  

Sustainly acknowledges the Bunurong / BoonWurrung people as the Traditional Owners of this country, pays tribute to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this land, and gives respect to the Elders past, present and emerging. 

© 2024 Sustainly | All rights reserved

Personal Ethical Dilemma: Adidas Case Study

Business ethics considers ethical and moral principles in the context of the business environment and governs the actions and behavior of individuals in an organization. Sometimes the companies face with a difficult choice – a moral dilemma, which is complicated by the factor of social responsibility and the contradictory nature of the interaction between the economy and traditional morality. Considering the dilemma of a business’s relationship with the environment, an organization faces a choice: to pollute the planet in order to make a profit or to change the company’s strategies aimed at improving the state of the environment.

Adidas promotes a healthy lifestyle, which is hardly possible in a polluted environment. However, the production of clothing, footwear, and accessories is still noticeably harmful to nature. These are pesticides and chemicals that get into the water when growing cotton and then when dyeing fabrics and the release of poisonous gases during the production of synthetics and transportation of finished products. The share of the light industry in CO2 emissions is higher than that of aviation and shipping combined. The statistics are still disappointing, any production somehow harms the surrounding world, and in general, this leads to the rapidly approaching global warming, pollution of the world’s ocean, destruction of the ozone layer.

The moral dilemma of the company is based on the relationship with the environment, they cannot stop polluting the planet ultimately, but the dilemma is resolved constantly. The organization is introducing a strategy of social responsibility, which is aimed at minimizing environmental pollution, numerous projects confirm this. Adidas is actively pursuing a recycling campaign. Also, recycled plastic waste from the coastal zone is becoming a vital component of the upper material of the shoe. They are trying to solve the problem of plastic in the ocean, reduce the use of primary plastic raw materials and change people’s minds in favor of protecting the environment.

To conclude, environmental issues are still perceived acutely by the society, but it is essential to understand that this moral dilemma has ways of resolving that the company can and should provide.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2023, January 1). Personal Ethical Dilemma: Adidas Case Study. https://studycorgi.com/personal-ethical-dilemma-adidas-case-study/

"Personal Ethical Dilemma: Adidas Case Study." StudyCorgi , 1 Jan. 2023, studycorgi.com/personal-ethical-dilemma-adidas-case-study/.

StudyCorgi . (2023) 'Personal Ethical Dilemma: Adidas Case Study'. 1 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Personal Ethical Dilemma: Adidas Case Study." January 1, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/personal-ethical-dilemma-adidas-case-study/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Personal Ethical Dilemma: Adidas Case Study." January 1, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/personal-ethical-dilemma-adidas-case-study/.

StudyCorgi . 2023. "Personal Ethical Dilemma: Adidas Case Study." January 1, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/personal-ethical-dilemma-adidas-case-study/.

This paper, “Personal Ethical Dilemma: Adidas Case Study”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 1, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.