top of page
< Back

Most Sustainable Running Shoe Brands: What Makes A Running Shoe Sustainable?

Running shoes are complicated products. A typical pair combines engineered textiles, cushioning foams, rubber, plastics, adhesives and numerous smaller components, often made from materials that are difficult to separate once the shoes reach the end of their useful life.

Running shoes are complicated products. A typical pair combines engineered textiles, cushioning foams, rubber, plastics, adhesives and numerous smaller components, often made from materials that are difficult to separate once the shoes reach the end of their useful life. That makes creating a genuinely sustainable running shoe extremely difficult. Using recycled polyester in an upper can reduce the need for virgin material, but the same shoe may still contain conventional petroleum-derived foam and synthetic rubber. Equally, designing a recyclable shoe achieves relatively little if there is no practical system for collecting worn shoes and recovering their materials. However, running shoe sustainability is developing quickly. Some manufacturers are introducing recycled materials into established shoes, while others are experimenting with plant-derived foams, natural rubber, simpler construction, product-level carbon measurement and shoes specifically designed to be returned and recycled. If you're looking for the most sustainable running shoe brands, it therefore makes more sense to examine exactly what companies are changing and which elements of their running shoes are becoming more sustainable. What Does A Sustainable Running Shoe Actually Mean? There is no universally accepted definition of a sustainable running shoe, and describing any newly manufactured running shoe as completely sustainable would be difficult to justify. Producing footwear requires raw materials, energy, manufacturing and transport, and eventually the shoe will wear out. It is more useful to think about reducing environmental impact. Manufacturers can use recycled rather than virgin materials, replace some fossil-derived ingredients with renewable alternatives, reduce waste during manufacturing or design shoes so that materials can potentially be recovered when they reach the end of their useful lives. Durability matters too. A shoe that performs well for a long time and does not need replacing as quickly can offer a different environmental advantage from a shoe that contains an impressive percentage of recycled material but wears out relatively quickly. The important point is that sustainability is not one feature. To understand what manufacturers are achieving, you need to look at the different components of the shoe. The Upper The upper is one of the most obvious places to introduce recycled materials. Recycled polyester is increasingly used within engineered mesh, knitted uppers, linings and other textile components, while laces, tongues and internal fabrics can also incorporate recycled material. This can reduce demand for virgin synthetic material, but percentages need to be interpreted carefully. A claim that 60% of an upper is recycled does not mean that 60% of the entire shoe is recycled. Some manufacturers are going further by introducing fibres derived partly or entirely from renewable feedstocks. Bio-based nylon and other alternatives can reduce dependence on conventional petroleum derived materials, although being bio-based does not automatically make a material biodegradable or recyclable. The Midsole The midsole presents a much greater challenge because it provides much of the cushioning and energy return runners expect from modern footwear. It needs to remain lightweight and resilient while surviving hundreds of miles of repeated compression. Conventional running shoe foams are predominantly derived from petrochemicals, but manufacturers are increasingly introducing renewable feedstocks. Materials derived from sources including sugarcane, corn and castor beans can replace some fossil-derived ingredients. Again, percentages matter. A midsole containing bio-based material is not necessarily entirely plant derived, and different manufacturers calculate and describe bio-based content in different ways. The Outsole Outsoles have to provide grip and resist abrasion, making durability particularly important. Conventional synthetic rubber remains widespread, but manufacturers are increasingly incorporating natural rubber and recycled rubber. There is also a potential trade off between reducing material and extending the life of a shoe. Removing outsole rubber may make a shoe lighter and reduce its initial material requirements, but that becomes less beneficial if the exposed midsole wears rapidly and the shoe needs replacing sooner. The Running Shoe Brands Leading The Way On Sustainability Hylo Hylo is one of the most interesting running brands when sustainability is examined at component level because renewable materials have been incorporated throughout the shoe rather than being concentrated solely in the upper. The Hylo Impact uses a knitted upper made from bio-based nylon derived from castor beans. Other materials include corn derived lining, bio-eva within the midsole, an outsole containing 60% natural rubber, a partly bio based insole and Tencel Lyocell laces. Hylo has stated that approximately 40% of the shoe by weight is bio based. It also publishes a product carbon footprint for the Impact of 8.63kg CO2e per pair, providing runners with considerably more information than a general claim that a shoe contains sustainable materials. The significance of Hylo's approach is that it tackles several different components. The midsole and outsole account for substantial parts of a running shoe, so introducing renewable materials in these areas potentially goes considerably further than simply replacing virgin polyester within the upper. Hylo is much smaller than the biggest global running brands, but its combination of material innovation and product-level carbon reporting makes it particularly relevant when examining the direction in which lower-impact running footwear could develop. On On has taken a different approach by concentrating heavily on circularity through its Cyclon programme and the Cloudneo running shoe. The Cloudneo was designed with its eventual recycling in mind. On states that the shoe is more than 90% recyclable and contains more than 50% bio-based materials. Its knitted upper contains 98% bio-based material, while its Speedboard contains 90% bio based material. Castor beans provide an important source of renewable feedstock, while the upper is left undyed to eliminate a further manufacturing process. The Cloudneo also uses fewer than ten individual components and a single cut upper, helping simplify its construction. The most interesting element is what happens afterwards. Cyclon provides a system through which eligible products can be returned to On, allowing recyclable components to be recovered and processed. On has demonstrated this process by incorporating material recovered from returned Cloudneo shoes, together with manufacturing waste, into components for subsequent footwear. That is important because recycling has been considered during the design of the shoe rather than being treated purely as a problem once the product has worn out. The Cloudneo does not mean that every On running shoe operates within a closed recycling loop, and genuinely circular footwear remains difficult to achieve at scale. Nevertheless, On's work makes it one of the most interesting major running brands in this area. Icebug Swedish footwear company Icebug stands out for the amount of environmental information it provides about individual products, particularly within its trail running range. The Järv RB9X illustrates the approach. Its outsole contains FSC-certified natural rubber together with recycled rubber, while its upper incorporates recycled polyester. The midsole uses a substantial proportion of Susterra, a material partly derived from corn. Icebug states that the finished Järv contains both bio based and recycled materials and also publishes a product carbon footprint for the shoe. This allows runners to look beyond an isolated recycled material percentage and consider the environmental impact of the product more broadly. That level of transparency is significant. Comparing sustainability claims between footwear companies can be extremely difficult when manufacturers use different measurements and terminology, so detailed information about individual materials and product footprints makes it easier to understand what has actually changed. Icebug remains much smaller than brands such as Nike, adidas or Asics, but its combination of bio-based materials, recycled content and product level environmental reporting earns it a place among the most interesting running brands in this area. Saucony Saucony has concentrated on introducing renewable and recycled materials while retaining the performance and construction runners would recognise from conventional running shoes. Its Run For Good standard sets specific thresholds for qualifying footwear. An RFG shoe needs an upper containing at least 75% organic, recycled or renewable materials, together with a sole and midsole containing at least 50% organic, recycled or renewable materials. The Triumph RFG demonstrates how far this approach can be taken. Saucony developed the shoe with a midsole containing 55% corn-based material, an outsole containing 80% natural rubber and a cotton upper using plant-based dyes. This is significant because the changes are not restricted to the upper. Addressing the foam and rubber components potentially reduces reliance on conventional fossil derived materials across a much greater proportion of the shoe. However, these specifications should not be applied to Saucony's entire range. The Triumph RFG is a particularly sustainability focused model, while other Saucony running shoes use different combinations of materials. Salomon Salomon has explored another important part of the sustainability problem: how to design a running shoe that is easier to recycle when it eventually wears out. The Index project was developed around this principle. It uses two principal material families, with polyester forming the upper section and TPU used for the lower portion of the shoe. Once the shoe reaches the end of its useful life, it can be returned through Salomon's collection system in participating markets. The upper and lower sections can then be separated so that the materials can enter different recycling streams. This demonstrates why design for disassembly matters. Conventional running shoes can contain recyclable materials but remain extremely difficult to recycle because different foams, textiles, plastics and rubber have been permanently bonded together. Salomon has also worked on reducing waste during manufacturing. Changes to the Index upper construction improved cutting efficiency and reduced the proportion of material discarded during the cutting process. Rather than concentrating only on how materials are sourced, Salomon's work demonstrates how the construction of the entire shoe can influence what happens to it later. The Salomon Index 03 Asics Asics is particularly interesting because its sustainability work includes both changing materials and attempting to quantify the environmental impact of footwear. Recycled polyester has become increasingly common within its running range. The Gel-NIimbus 28, for example, uses polyester fabric made from recycled PET for at least 75% of its main upper. Asics has also incorporated bio based content into some cushioning materials. Certain versions of its FF Blast Plus foam contain approximately 24% bio based material, demonstrating how renewable feedstocks can be introduced into an area of the shoe traditionally dominated by petrochemicals. Another important part of the Asics approach is carbon measurement. The company has published product carbon footprint information for selected footwear, considering areas including materials, manufacturing, transportation, use and eventual end of life. This matters because recycled content only tells part of the environmental story. Manufacturing and other stages of a shoe's lifecycle also contribute to its overall footprint, making transparent carbon information particularly useful. Veja Veja is better known for lifestyle footwear than specialist running shoes, but its running range contains enough interesting material innovation to warrant inclusion. The Condor range has incorporated substantial proportions of recycled and bio-based materials. Current models use components including recycled polyester engineered mesh alongside materials derived from sugarcane and Amazonian rubber. Veja's approach is particularly notable because renewable material is incorporated into components beyond the upper. Sugarcane derived material can contribute to cushioning components, while natural Amazonian rubber can reduce the proportion of conventional synthetic rubber required within the outsole. Veja does not have the breadth of specialist running footwear offered by brands such as Asics, Brooks or Saucony, so it would be misleading to present it as an equivalent running company. However, the material composition of its running shoes makes it an interesting example of how renewable resources can be introduced throughout footwear. Brooks Brooks has taken a more incremental approach by increasing recycled content within some of its mainstream running shoes rather than concentrating exclusively on specialist environmental models. The Ghost 17 is a good example. Brooks states that 59% of the materials within its upper are recycled, meaning recycled content has been incorporated into one of the company's highest profile everyday running shoes. Brooks also describes the Ghost 17 as a certified CarbonNeutral product. This does not mean manufacturing the shoe produces no greenhouse gas emissions. Brooks works to reduce emissions associated with the product and then uses independently verified carbon credits to address residual emissions covered by the certification. The distinction is important because carbon neutral claims can easily be misunderstood. Reducing the actual footprint of producing footwear and compensating for remaining emissions are related but different approaches. The advantage Brooks has is scale. Introducing meaningful recycled content into a mainstream shoe purchased by large numbers of runners can potentially have a substantial overall effect, even if the individual shoe is less radical than some of the specialist products in this article. adidas adidas has incorporated recycled materials across numerous running shoes, although the precise wording of its sustainability claims needs careful interpretation. Some adidas running models contain minimum percentages of recycled material across the product, while others specify recycled content within the upper. This distinction is important because saying that an upper contains 50% recycled material is very different from saying that half of the entire shoe is recycled. adidas has also previously experimented with substantially reducing the measured carbon footprint of running footwear, including through its collaboration with Allbirds. That project demonstrated how changes to materials, weight and manufacturing could be considered together rather than concentrating on one component. Across the wider current running range, the approach is generally more incremental. Recycled content is increasingly incorporated into established performance footwear while the fundamental multi-material construction of a conventional running shoe remains. Given the enormous scale at which adidas manufactures footwear, relatively modest changes can still apply across very large numbers of products. Nike Nike has increasingly incorporated recycled materials into mainstream running footwear, although its approach should be distinguished from the more radical circular or heavily bio based projects elsewhere in the industry. Nike identifies qualifying footwear as containing sustainable materials when at least 20% of the product by weight is made with recycled content. Recycled polyester is used within numerous footwear products, while knitted construction can also help reduce some of the cutting waste associated with conventional cut-and-sew uppers. Nike Grind provides another route for manufacturing scrap and material recovered from some used footwear to be processed for subsequent applications. However, this should not be confused with a closed loop system in which a worn running shoe routinely becomes another running shoe. These are worthwhile improvements, particularly when applied by a company manufacturing footwear at enormous scale. However, incorporating recycled materials into conventional footwear is fundamentally different from designing a shoe around circularity or replacing substantial proportions of conventional materials throughout the midsole and outsole. Puma Puma is also incorporating recycled materials into mainstream performance running footwear, including models within its Nitro range. The Deviate Nitro 4, for example, has an upper containing at least 20% recycled material while retaining the synthetic performance foam and rubber outsole expected from a modern plated running shoe. This illustrates why it is important to examine individual components rather than treating the presence of recycled material as evidence that the entire shoe is sustainable. Puma's approach is therefore more incremental than some of the specialist projects elsewhere in the industry. Increasing recycled content within uppers can reduce demand for virgin material, but other major components of the shoe remain more conventional. As with Nike, scale is important. Changes introduced across mainstream Puma running shoes can potentially affect a large number of products, even when the sustainability innovations within an individual shoe are less extensive than those found in some of the more experimental models covered in this article. Check what the outsole of your next pair of shoes is made of Is Recycled Always Better? Using recycled material can reduce demand for virgin resources, but it does not remove all environmental impacts. Recycled polyester still needs to be collected, processed and manufactured into new fibres. A running shoe with a recycled polyester upper may also contain virgin foam, synthetic rubber, plastics and adhesives elsewhere, while combining all those materials can make the finished shoe extremely difficult to recycle. Bio based materials have their own complications. Replacing petroleum derived material with feedstock originating from plants can reduce dependence on fossil resources, but environmental impact still depends on factors including agriculture, processing, energy and transportation. Bio based does not necessarily mean biodegradable either. A high performance polymer partly or entirely derived from plants can still behave like a conventional synthetic material once it has been manufactured. Specific claims are therefore much more useful than broad descriptions. Knowing that an outsole contains 60% natural rubber or that an upper contains 59% recycled material tells runners considerably more than simply describing a shoe as green or environmentally friendly. Why Durability Matters One of the less glamorous sustainability issues may also be one of the most important. A running shoe that remains usable for longer does not need to be replaced as quickly. This makes durability part of the environmental discussion. Reducing the amount of outsole rubber might lower initial material use and reduce weight, but that advantage becomes less convincing if the exposed midsole deteriorates quickly and the shoe needs replacing sooner. Runners can play a role too. Running shoes do not need to be replaced automatically after an arbitrary number of miles if they remain comfortable, structurally sound and appropriate for running. Equally, shoes that are no longer suitable for regular training may still have considerable useful life for walking or everyday wear. Buying fewer pairs and using suitable shoes for longer is a much less exciting sustainability message than introducing a new material, but it should not be overlooked. Read more about when you should replace your running shoes here. Why Running Shoes Are So Difficult To Recycle Modern running shoes are usually composite products. Engineered mesh, cushioning foam, rubber, plastic reinforcements, internal fabrics, laces and adhesives all have different properties and can be permanently bonded together. Putting a worn running shoe into a recycling collection therefore does not automatically mean that its materials can be recovered and turned into another shoe. Separating those materials economically and at sufficient quality for reuse remains one of the industry's biggest challenges. That is what makes projects such as On's Cloudneo and Salomon's Index particularly interesting. Both approaches consider recycling while the product is being designed, either by simplifying the materials and components involved or making it easier to separate them later. True footwear circularity remains a considerable challenge, particularly at the enormous scale of the global running shoe market. Nevertheless, designing a product around what happens when it wears out represents an important development beyond simply adding recycled material to conventional footwear. Should Sustainability Influence Which Running Shoes You Buy? Sustainability can form part of your decision, but it should not override whether a running shoe is actually suitable for you. A shoe still needs to fit properly, feel comfortable and meet the demands of the running you intend to do. Buying a supposedly lower-impact shoe that does not suit you and replacing it after a short period is unlikely to achieve much. Once you have identified several suitable shoes, sustainability information can provide another way of choosing between them. Look for specific percentages of recycled or renewable material, details of which components those percentages apply to, product carbon-footprint information and a clear explanation of what can actually happen to the shoe at the end of its life. Broad terms such as green, eco friendly and sustainable are far less useful when they are not accompanied by evidence explaining what has actually changed. Read more about choosing your next pair of running shoes here. Which Running Shoe Brands Are Most Sustainable? There is no convincing way to produce a definitive ranking of the most sustainable running shoe brands because different manufacturers are tackling different parts of the problem. Hylo is particularly interesting for its extensive use of bio-based materials throughout the shoe, while On is pushing further into circular design and the recovery of material from returned footwear. Icebug stands out for its product- evel transparency, Saucony has demonstrated how renewable materials can be incorporated into the upper, midsole and outsole, and Salomon has focused heavily on designing footwear that can be separated and recycled more easily. Asics is making useful progress in both materials and carbon-footprint transparency, while Veja demonstrates another approach to incorporating renewable materials. Brooks, adidas, Nike and Puma are each introducing changes into footwear produced at much greater scale, which is important even when the changes to an individual shoe are less radical. Perhaps the biggest development is that sustainable running shoes are gradually becoming about much more than recycled polyester. Bio based cushioning, natural rubber, manufacturing efficiency, durability, carbon measurement, design for disassembly and practical end of life recycling are all becoming parts of the discussion. The ideal running shoe would perform well, remain usable for a long time, minimise virgin fossil-derived materials and provide a practical route for recovering useful materials when it eventually wears out. No brand has completely solved that challenge yet, but some of today's running shoes are beginning to show what a lower impact future for running footwear could look like.

most-sustainable-running-shoe-brands-what-makes-a-running-shoe-more-sustainable

bottom of page