Ethical Sportswear

Along with a growing interest in fitness and wellbeing, ambitious sportswear and activewear brands are furiously competing for attention, especially from women. With internet searches for “sustainable fashion” tripling between 2016 and 2019, more and more companies are seeing the benefits of showcasing environmental credentials.

With the rise of greenwashing, we look at eco labelling and what brands mean when they use the word sustainable or eco, and if they are really committed to sustainable sportswear. We also look at whether the brands really care about the people who make these clothes.

Which brands of activewear are included in this ethical guide?

For this updated guide we have included newer brands that are big in yoga or gym wear: Gymshark, Lululemon and Sweaty Betty. We’ve also added several more ethical alternatives: Girlfriend Collective, Pangaia and Tala, and two brands from our Ethical Clothing guide Beyond Retro and People Tree, bringing second-hand and Fairtrade items into this guide as a result.

Of course, for many sports and activities, you don’t need specialist sports clothing or the added stretch of spandex or elastane. Our Ethical T-shirts guide has loads of Best Buy options for classic t-shirts – the THTC brand also has a range of organic cotton joggers for men and women.

Which sportswear brands sell what clothing for whom?

Most brands included in this guide sell a range of sportswear including sports bras, leggings, tops, yogawear and leisure or lounge wear. Beyond Retro is all second-hand so less predictable in terms of range, but relatively cheap. Yew Clothing only sells tops. Girlfriend Collective, People Tree, Sweaty Betty, Tala and USA Pro are aimed at women only.

Size inclusivity and ethical sportswear

We looked at women’s leggings for all brands to see which made these in sizes above UK women’s size 20. Of those listed below, Adidas and Girlfriend Collective also used plus size models. Girlfriend Collective is one of our Recommended brands.

• Up to size 22 – Columbia, New Balance, Tommy Hilfiger, USAPro, Yogamatters
• Up to size 28 – Girlfriend Collective
• Up to size 32 – Nike, Reebok
• Up to size 34 – Adidas

Workers’ rights issues in sportswear - the real sweatshops

In our research into ethical sportswear, we found evidence that sweatshops exist. Some suppliers are not even paying the local minimum wage.

The legal minimum wage in many countries is already much lower than that needed to escape poverty, but over the last year or so it’s got even worse for some workers. The international Workers’ Rights Consortium (WRC) says that 400,000 garment workers in the Indian state of Karnataka have not been paid even the minimum wage since April 2020.

One worker was quoted as saying,

“Throughout this year I have only fed my family rice and chutney sauce”. “I tried to talk to the factory management about it,” she added, “but they said, ‘this is what we pay to work here. If you don’t like it, you can leave.’”

The executive director of the WRC said it had demanded for two years that western brands including Puma and Nike intervene, but that they had let it continue.

The minimum wage had gone up by just £4.10 a month in April 2020, but had never been paid. Suppliers argue that a legal complaint over the raise was still in the courts, but the Karnataka high court had ruled in September 2021 that the new minimum wage and all arrears should be paid.

Brands need to take responsibility over sweatshops

In Sri Lanka, The Asia Floor Wage Alliance (AFWA) has submitted a legal complaint against Columbia Sportswear Company, Asics, and Tommy Hilfiger, claiming they are acting as ‘shadow employers’ and should be held accountable along with suppliers for alleged wage violations during the Covid-19 pandemic.

AFWA released a report in July 2021, looking at what it argued was wage theft in six garment-producing countries. It listed 15 global fashion brands as jointly responsible with suppliers for the destitution of millions of garment workers, and the poverty wages before the pandemic that did not provide any safety blanket to tide them over.

"These suppliers, are not independent manufacturers, having garments produced and selling them on the global market. Rather, they are contract manufacturers" said the report. It argues that brands should have responsibility to sustain workers in times of recession. Instead, workers, and especially women workers, had to reduce consumption, deplete savings and increase debt. It was in fact the workers who "subsidised the stabilisation and recovery of brand profits".

The report argues in its Foreword that

"the risks of business were basically transferred to suppliers from the Global South and, in turn, to their workers." Global brands, it says, sacrificed workers from the Global South to protect their share value in the Global North."

Asics said it did not agree that it had a joint business relationship with its suppliers. Columbia Sportswear Company said, “We believe that the strategies we enacted were able to reduce the impacts of the global pandemic on our supply chain partners and their employees.” PVH, parent of Tommy Hilfiger, did not comment.

Go to the Clean Clothes website for a live blog on how Covid-19 continues to affect garment workers’ rights.

Which sportswear brands are doing better for workers' rights?

The only brands to get our best rating for Supply Chain Management were Beyond Retro, Ellesse, Girlfriend Collective, and People Tree.

Comparing workers' wages with executive pay

A recent report from Asia Floor Wage Alliance highlight the huge discrepancy between what garment workers are paid, and what the company executives are paid.

The quotes below are from the report 'Money Heist: COVID-19 Wage Theft in Global Garment Supply Chains'.

Pollution and microplastics in sportswear

A 2021 report by Business of Fashion stated that while industry coalitions like ZDHC (Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals) and the SAC (Sustainable Apparel Coalition) have been good at creating a “harmonized infrastructure for more effective chemicals management”, this hasn’t translated enough into actual reduction of toxic chemical use.

It identified fashion as a “thirsty and dirty” industry, and Under Armour as a particularly bad performer among the largest sportswear, high street and luxury brands. It recommended companies should publish their ‘chemical footprint’, as most currently don’t disclose regular or complete data on this.

It also referenced a 2020 report by the not-for-profit charity CDP (previously known as the Carbon Disclosure Project but now with a wider remit), which concluded that many companies in the fashion and textiles industry are “largely blind to the risks of water pollution” despite being major water users and polluters.

This pollution can come at all stages of production, from agricultural run-off from cotton fields to chemicals used in dying, to the microplastics released when synthetic clothes are washed or disposed of. Natural microfibres can also be persistent in the environment if they are coated in chemicals.

Our outdoor clothing guide has more detail about the problems from synthetic materials and microfibres.

What are sports clothing brands doing about water pollution and toxic chemicals?

The CDP report 'Interwoven Risks, Untapped Opportunities' includes several companies which are featured in our guides: Adidas, Asics, Gap, Hanesbrands, H&M, NIKE, Puma, PVH, Under Armour, and VF Corp (The North Face). The CDP had requested data from many more companies, but more than half failed to report.

Hanesbrands (Champion and Shock Absorber) was named as one of the most risk-aware companies in terms of water pollution. H&M was the only reporting company to mention microplastics, even though washing of synthetic clothes is said to account for a third of all microplastics released globally.

Some companies appeared to show little responsibility, with VF Corporation “reporting that due to the flexibility of their global supply chain, water pollution does not pose a reputational risk as the company has the ability to move capacity from one facility to another if an environmental incident were to occur.”

The report mentioned Sweden’s then plans for a new tax on toxic chemicals in clothing, which would have applied per kilo of clothing or footwear produced or imported to the country. Up to a 95% deduction would have been possible for companies which could prove certain chemicals had not been used. However, in September 2021 the government announced it would not proceed. H&M was reported to have opposed the tax, saying it would have required expensive testing for chemicals that were known not to be in most products.

Are any sportswear brands taking action on pollution and chemicals?

Companies that got our best rating for Pollution and Toxics were Beyond Retro, as it only sold second-hand textiles, Girlfriend Collective (90% recycled polyester), Pangaia (no virgin synthetics), People Tree (approximately 90% organic cotton) and Yew Clothing (100% recycled polyester or organic cotton).

Our rating did not include packaging, because although this is one area in which companies can take action, their core materials are more important.

Materials used in activewear

Cotton

Our article on choosing sustainable fabrics has information about the pros and cons of various natural and synthetic fabrics, including environmental concerns as well workers' rights and cotton sourcing to avoid forced labour. In general, organic cotton is one of the better fabrics to choose.

Although many companies now use some organic or recycled cotton, only a few solely use these with no conventionally grown cotton: Girlfriend Collective, Gossypium/Yogamatters, Pangaia, Yew Clothing (t-shirts only). Almost 90% of People Tree’s cotton is organic.

Animal products used in sportswear

Our updated outdoor clothing guide highlights issues with using animal products in clothing, including leather, wool and down.

A few companies do not use any animal products: Champion, Shock Absorber, Girlfriend Collective, Gossypium, Yogamatters, Gymshark, Tala, Yew Clothing.

Several use down (feathers): Adidas, Lululemon, Nike, Puma, Sweaty Betty and Under Armour. Only Puma's down was RDS certified. You can read more about issues with live-plucking and animal down in our feature article.

Of those that used merino wool, Lululemon and Sweaty Betty did not appear to have a policy against mulesing, criticised as a cruel practice used on merino sheep.

Confusing eco labels on sportswear

Almost all brands are now using recycled polyester and organic cotton, at least in some products. We delve more into polyester problems in our guide to outdoor clothing.

There are only a few brands fully focusing on sustainable materials, and the messaging from other companies is often murky.

We looked for sustainability filters or labels on the companies’ websites, and whether they clearly explained their meanings. Some were unclear, or even quite misleading.

As shown in the table below, most items somehow labelled as sustainable are a blend of material types. Although textile recycling is barely happening as yet, blended materials make it problematic. We found that:

• some companies – Puma (in some cases), and The North Face – stated that an item contained recycled materials, but items contained more than one type of material and no details were given for how much of which material was recycled.
• some – Calvin Klein (in some cases), and Columbia – even used sustainability labels like  Sustainability, or Eco Friendly, with no further information about what they meant.
• many had no clear sustainability labelling on their websites: Asics, Ellesse, Everlast, Gymshark, Lululemon, Shock Absorber, Sweaty Betty, Under Armour, USA Pro.

It’s also worth remembering that most companies are still using huge amounts of virgin synthetic materials, even if they do have some that are recycled. Nike alone is said to use 10 million gallons of oil a year to produce their clothes.

Some synthetics are used because they can stretch and then recover their shape, like nylon, or elastane which is also known as spandex or Lycra. Others are used because they are especially moisture-wicking and quick-drying like polyester, i.e. moisture is drawn away from your skin so it can evaporate.

Bamboo however is also good for not getting sweaty, and cotton, while it doesn’t dry as quickly, doesn’t hold sweaty smells like synthetics can. But these materials also have pollution problems if produced in the conventional way, which is why we recommend choosing lyocell bamboo and organic or recycled cotton.

Sportswear brands and eco labelling

In our research into the materials used in sportswear and how this is labelled we found many examples of  incomplete or less than ideal information. The table below shows how confusing this is for consumers who are looking to make informed choices about what is the most sustainable material or item of clothing to buy.

Carbon ratings and sportswear

This is the first time we have rated sportswear companies for what they are doing to tackle their carbon footprint from clothing. We expect them to at least explain how they have reduced the carbon impacts of their key materials or manufacturing, as these make up the majority of companies’ emissions. For footwear manufacturers this includes their use of leather.

Nike states that about 70% of its environmental impact comes from growing, processing and finishing materials. It was the only one of the biggest companies that was seen to be doing much to reduce leather impact, by using leather scraps to make ‘Flyleather’.

Whatever materials brands use, over-consumption still needs to stop. Fashion production has doubled since the early 2000’s, and 69% of clothing is made from plastics. Cheap, throwaway fashion is currently dependent on fossil fuels, and therefore contributing to fossil fuel extraction.

Lower carbon alternatives

Several small companies were seen to be providing lower-carbon alternatives overall and so got a middle or best rating: Beyond Retro, Girlfriend Collective, Gossypium/Yogamatters, Pangaia, People Tree, Tala and Yew Clothing.

Which sportswear brands score positive marks for their company ethos?

Three companies received positive Company Ethos marks:

• People Tree for being certified by the World Fair Trade Organisation
• Beyond Retro for using only recycled materials
• Pangaia for using and developing many innovative environmentally alternative materials, such as FLWRDWN™ – "A downfill material made using a combination of wildflowers, a biopolymer and aerogel."

Additional research for this guide by Shanta Bhavnani.