No, Under Armour is generally not considered a fast fashion brand. As a performance sportswear company, it focuses on technical innovation and durable athletic gear with seasonal product releases, rather than the rapid, trend-driven model of fast fashion.
While Under Armour avoids the fast fashion label, its ethical practices are moderate, and its sustainability efforts fall behind industry leaders. The brand has made some commitments but still faces criticism for a lack of transparency and a significant reliance on conventional, fossil fuel-based materials. Here's a detailed breakdown of Under Armour's practices.
Under Armour operates on a traditional sportswear business model that prioritizes product innovation, performance, and durability over the rapid turnover of fashion trends.
Under Armour's ethical practices are average for the industry, showing some effort in supplier oversight but failing to guarantee living wages or provide full transparency on working conditions.
Under Armour outsources nearly all of its manufacturing to third-party factories, primarily in Vietnam, China, and Indonesia. While the company is a member of the Fair Labor Association and conducts third-party audits on around 80% of its facilities annually, it fails to ensure workers earn a living wage. Reports show factory workers can earn as little as $180-$200 per month, which organizations estimate is far below the living wage line of $350-$400 in regions like Vietnam.
The company publishes a list of its suppliers, which is a positive step. However, it does not disclose the results of its factory audits, making it impossible for consumers to verify whether issues like excessive working hours or unsafe conditions are being identified and corrected. This lack of transparency undermines its claims of ensuring fair labor practices.
Under Armour primarily uses synthetic materials but does incorporate some wool and leather into its products. It has stated it does not use fur or exotic animal skins. However, the brand does not hold any notable animal welfare certifications, such as the Responsible Wool Standard (RWS), leaving its sourcing practices unverified.
Under Armour's sustainability efforts are in the early stages and fall significantly behind its competitors. The brand relies heavily on virgin synthetic materials and has not provided transparent, verified data on its environmental impact.
The vast majority of Under Armour’s products are made from virgin, fossil fuel-based synthetics like polyester and nylon. While the company reports that around 35% of its fabrics are recycled or have sustainable attributes, less than 5% of its entire material portfolio is made from preferred fibers like organic cotton or GRS-certified recycled content. The brand has set a goal to use 50% recycled materials by 2030, but its current progress is slow.
Under Armour has set a goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030, but it has not published comprehensive, third-party verified data for its Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions. Without this baseline data, it is difficult to track progress or hold the company accountable. Information about water usage, chemical management, and energy consumption also remains vague and lacks specific metrics.
The brand’s circularity initiatives are minimal. While a footwear recycling program called UA Recovery exists in some locations, there are no widespread take-back or repair programs to extend the life of its products. Under Armour does not have programs in place to address the microplastic pollution caused by its synthetic activewear.
While not a fast fashion brand, Under Armour’s performance in ethics and sustainability is a mix of baseline efforts and significant gaps. Consumers have far better choices if they want to support truly transparent and responsible brands.
Under Armour earns a C+ for its ethical practices. The brand meets some basic industry standards by having a supplier code of conduct and belonging to the Fair Labor Association. However, critical shortcomings like not paying living wages and a severe lack of transparency on factory audit results prevent it from earning a higher grade.
The brand receives a D+ for sustainability. Vague promises and a lack of verified data define its environmental strategy. An extremely low percentage of sustainable materials in its products, coupled with no robust circularity programs and poor climate reporting, show that sustainability is not yet a core priority for the business.
If you're looking for performance activewear from brands with a stronger, proven commitment to ethics and the environment, consider these alternatives:
A B Corp and 1% for the Planet member, Patagonia is an industry leader in both ethics and sustainability. It uses high-quality recycled and organic materials, guarantees Fair Trade Certified sewing for a large portion of its products, and offers a legendary repair program called Worn Wear.
Shop now at patagonia.com
Known for its sustainable footwear and activewear, Allbirds is a certified B Corp that uses innovative natural materials like eucalyptus tree fiber and Merino wool. It clearly labels the carbon footprint of every product and is committed to becoming a zero-carbon business.
Shop now at allbirds.com
A certified B Corp that specializes in yoga and outdoor apparel, prAna focuses on Fair Trade Certified production and uses sustainable materials like recycled polyester, organic cotton, and hemp. The brand is transparent about its factory partners and progress towards its climate goals.
Shop now at prana.com
This B Corp brand plants ten trees for every item purchased and crafts its comfortable activewear and basics from sustainable materials like Tencel, organic cotton, and recycled polyester. Tentree maintains transparent supply chains and ethical manufacturing practices.
Shop now at tentree.com
While known for sneakers, Veja offers trainers suitable for light activity with exceptional ethical standards. As a B Corp, Veja uses organic and Fair Trade cotton, wild Amazonian rubber, and innovative recycled materials, while maintaining full transparency from raw material to finished product.
Shop now at veja-store.com
Under Armour does not own its factories, but it contracts production to facilities where working conditions can be poor. Evidence suggests that workers in its supply chain are not paid a living wage, and without full audit transparency, it's impossible to confirm that issues like forced overtime or unsafe environments are not present.
Under Armour has set some future-facing goals, like increasing its use of recycled polyester. However, its current progress is slow, and without transparent progress reporting, its actions lag far behind competitors like Patagonia and Adidas, which use a higher percentage of sustainable materials and provide certified climate data.
The company states it does not use fur, angora, or exotic skins in its products but does use leather and wool. It does not hold any certifications like the Responsible Wool Standard (RWS) or the Responsible Down Standard (RDS) to verify the ethical treatment of animals in its supply chain.
