Carbon Footprint — Operations: How does Under Armour score?

Under Armour reports Scope 1 (3,614 tCO₂e) and Scope 2 market-based (33,044 tCO₂e) for 2023 per its Sustainability Data Spreadsheet, using GHG Protocol methodology with multi-year tracking back to 2019. Scope 1 has declined 37.7% since 2019. However, no third-party verification is confirmed, and the minimal difference between market-based and location-based Scope 2 (33,044 vs 33,713) suggests limited renewable energy procurement impact on operational emissions.

Carbon Footprint — Supply Chain: How does Under Armour score?

Under Armour reports total Scope 3 emissions of 1,630,988 tCO₂e for 2023, representing 98% of its total footprint. However, it provides zero category-level Scope 3 breakdown, limiting visibility into specific value chain sources. Stand.earth notes UA does not provide supply chain energy data or breakdown by country or supplier tier. Supplier engagement is limited to Higg FEM assessments without evidence of active decarbonization support.

Emissions Trajectory: How does Under Armour score?

Under Armour's total emissions have INCREASED from the 2018 baseline of 1,430,379 tCO₂e to 1,667,646 tCO₂e in 2023 — well behind the 30% reduction target. Scope 3 emissions rose 12.77% from 2021 to 2023 per Tracenable. The company then rescinded its science-based targets in May 2025, removing any binding commitment to reduce. This trajectory is moving in the wrong direction on absolute terms.

Energy Source: How does Under Armour score?

Under Armour joined RE100 in 2021 and committed to 100% renewable electricity by 2030 with an 80% interim target by 2025. It participates in a Fashion Pact collective VPPA for European demand via Lightsource BP. However, Commons and Stand.earth both report UA is off track for its renewable energy target. The negligible difference between market-based and location-based Scope 2 figures indicates minimal actual renewable sourcing achieved. No supply chain renewable energy target exists.

Nature & Biodiversity Impact: How does Under Armour score?

Good On You states there is no evidence Under Armour takes actions to protect biodiversity in its supply chain. Stand.earth notes no strong policies on leather from deforestation-free sources. No TNFD disclosure or alignment. The 2024 EDF Climate Corps project assessed biodiversity gaps but produced only recommendations, not implemented actions. No cotton sustainability certification (scored 4.6/100 on Sustainable Cotton Ranking). Given UA's global supply chain touches high-risk ecosystems for c

Resource Use & Waste: How does Under Armour score?

Under Armour reports approximately 40% of fabrics are made from recyclable materials. Over 300 products use recycled polyester. The company set targets for 75% single-use plastic packaging reduction by 2025 and 100% recycled polyester by 2030, but is off track on packaging targets. No live repair, resale, or take-back programs exist. Commons rates products and packaging as 'Insufficient.' Circular design principles were targeted for FW2024 products but limited evidence of implementation at scale

Water Impact: How does Under Armour score?

Remake's Fashion Accountability Report 2022 found UA's water footprint is not disclosed and no water stewardship targets were published. No ZDHC wastewater compliance evidence. UA enrolled 20+ Tier 1 suppliers in Apparel Impact Institute's Clean by Design program for water-use efficiency, and uses solution dyeing to reduce water use in some products. However, no quantified water consumption data, no water reduction targets, and no disclosure of supply chain water impact. For a company whose supp

Targets & Commitments: How does Under Armour score?

Under Armour had SBTi-validated targets from 2021 (30% absolute reduction Scope 1-3 by 2030, net zero by 2050). In May 2025, the company rescinded these targets, citing a need to reassess. Green Century described this as reneging on its pledge. The company has provided no timeline or details on replacement targets. Net zero commitment was also removed by SBTi. Per SINK rules, removed from SBTi = cap at 2; active retraction without replacement warrants a score of 1.

Transparency & Accountability: How does Under Armour score?

Under Armour published a FY2023 Sustainability & Impact Report with SASB Table, GRI Index, and Sustainability Metrics. The company completed a GRI-aligned materiality assessment in 2021. However, it has not published TCFD/CSRD-aligned disclosure, does not provide Scope 3 category breakdowns, provides no third-party assurance of emissions data, and its website now states previous sustainability targets may change. The company has not published a new sustainability report since FY2023, and its Sep

Controversies & Red Flags: How does Under Armour score?

Starting at 8. Deduct 2 for the May 2025 retraction of SBTi-validated climate targets — a significant backward step documented by Green Century shareholder proposal, investor criticism, and credible sustainability assessors. Deduct 1 for consistent poor ratings from independent assessors: Good On You 'Not Good Enough' (Feb 2026), Stand.earth low scores, Commons 'Insufficient' rating, and historical RAN criticism regarding forest-destroying supply chains. No regulatory fines or upheld legal actio

Under Armour Sustainability Score: 23/100

Recently scored: Dentsu, Omnicom, Publicis Groupe, WPP

507 companies scored·4 score updates this week

Under Armour·Apparel (Durable / Outdoor)·Baltimore, Maryland, US·Founded 1996·Last verified 25 April 2026

out of 100

Significant gapsPending Review

Under Armour has dismantled its climate commitments entirely. Total emissions rose 16.6% since 2018 despite a 30% reduction pledge; Scope 3 grew 12.77% from 2021–2023. The company rescinded its SBTi targets in May 2025 without replacement. Supply chain visibility is absent—no Scope 3 breakdown, no water disclosure, no biodiversity action. Independent assessors rate it 'Not Good Enough.'

No challenges currently filed

The calculation

Every score shows its working.

Same formula for every company. No curve. No private weighting.

SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × Scale

Industry base impact

Apparel (Durable / Outdoor) sector ceiling.

30 / 100

Performance score

Sum of the 10 rubric questions, scored 0–10 each.

27 / 100

Raw score

Weighted average before scale penalty.

(0.3 × 30) + (0.7 × 27) = 27.9

Scale penalty

Multiplier based on absolute emissions volume — physics-first.

× 0.82

Final score

Rounded. Significant gaps.

23 / 100

The ten questions

Where Under Armour is strong, and where it isn't.

Strongest on Carbon Footprint — Operations and Controversies & Red Flags (5/10, 5/10). Weakest on Targets & Commitments and Water Impact (1/10, 1/10).

Where the evidence comes from

Every document used, listed.

16 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which rubric questions it informed.

[1]Third-party verified

Under Armour GHG Emissions Data

Ongoing

Q1Q2Q3

Every score shows its working.

Where Under Armour is strong, and where it isn't.

Every document used, listed.

Under Armour sits at the bottom of the apparel (durable / outdoor) pack.

Under Armour's score over time.

This score is not currently being contested.

Related companies worth a look.

We'll let you know when the score moves.

Which companies moved this week, and why.