brand cover image

ASICS

Rated: Not good enough

price: $$$$

location: Australia

ASICS is not taking adequate steps to ensure payment of a living wage for its workers.

ASICS sustainability rating

Planet

2 out of 5

People

2 out of 5

Animals

2 out of 5

Overall rating: Not good enough

Our ratings are based on a scale from 1 (We avoid) to 5 (Great) How we rate


ASICS environment rating is 'not good enough'. It uses few eco-friendly materials. There is no evidence it has a policy to minimise the impacts of microplastics. It has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its own operations and supply chain but there is no evidence it is on track to meet its target. There is no evidence it minimises textile waste when manufacturing its products.

Its labour rating is 'not good enough'. Little of its supply chain is certified by labour standards which ensure worker health and safety, living wages or other labour rights. It received a score of 41-50% in the 2021 Fashion Transparency Index. There is no evidence it implements practices to support diversity and inclusion in its supply chain. There is no evidence it ensures payment of a living wage in its supply chain. It discloses policies to protect suppliers and workers in its supply chain from the impacts of COVID-19.

Its animal rating is 'not good enough'. It has a general statement about minimising animal suffering but not a formal animal welfare policy. It uses leather and down and exotic animal hair. It has a policy to source wool from non-mulesed sheep but does not provide evidence on how it is implemented. It does not use fur, angora or exotic animal skin. There is no evidence it traces any animal products to the first stage of production.

ASICS is rated 'Not good enough' overall.

Last updated February 2022