Under Armour sustainability score: 27/100
Better than 12% of Apparel (Durable / Outdoor)
Below expectations starts at 31. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Under Armour designs and sells sports apparel, footwear and accessories through retailers and its own Brand and Factory House stores and websites; in its year to 31 March 2026 apparel was about 68% of net revenues, footwear 22% and accessories 8%. Under Armour, Inc. was incorporated as a Maryland corporation in 1996 and is based in Baltimore.
More about Under Armour
It had about 14,100 employees at 31 March 2026 and US$4.97 billion net revenues that year.
Founded 1996Head office Baltimore, United StatesStaff ~14,100 (31 March 2026, year-end)Revenue ~US$4.97B net revenues (year to 31 March 2026)Website ↗
Under Armour's latest published footprint is 1,664,398 tCO2e for its year to March 2023, 98% of it in its supply chain and up 12% on FY2021; it has published no emissions data since. Only 6% of the electricity in its own sites was renewable in FY2023, against an interim goal of 80% by 2025. In May 2025 it withdrew its SBTi-validated 2030 target and its 2050 net-zero commitment, and it has set no replacement. Its data has never been externally assured, and recycled polyester was 10% of its apparel and accessories. Shareholder advocate Green Century criticised the withdrawal in 2025.
Under Armour scores 27/100 (Significant gaps) on SINK's independent climate assessment, scored from public data only. Scores are free. Nobody can pay to change a score, speed it up or hide it. Last verified November 2026.
That places Under Armour joint 815th of 1,023 companies scored, and 51st of 58 in Apparel (Durable / Outdoor).
What is Under Armour doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Controversies & Red Flags and Carbon Footprint: Operations (7/10, 6/10). Weakest on Emissions Trajectory and Energy Source (0/10, 2/10).
Where Under Armour lost points
For each question that lost points, the evidence our public rubric looks for that we didn't find.
What would raise this score
- Whether its emissions are fallingShow its emissions are falling.
- How clean its energy isMove to a renewable energy tariff or make a major efficiency investment.
- Its effect on natureAssess its effect on nature and publish a basic environmental policy.
Every question that lost points
- Emissions from its own operations6/10Its own emissions aren't independently verified or tracked over several years.
- Emissions from its supply chain5/10No full value-chain map or supplier engagement programme.
- Whether its emissions are falling0/10No evidence its emissions are falling.
- How clean its energy is2/10No renewable energy tariff or major efficiency investment shown.
- Its effect on nature2/10No assessment of its effect on nature, and no basic environmental policy.
- How it uses materials and handles waste4/10No measurable waste or recycling targets reported publicly.
- Its effect on water3/10No monitoring of water use, or no measures to reduce it.
- Its climate targets2/10No specific targets with dates.
- How openly it reports4/10No dedicated sustainability role, board oversight or public report.
- Its record on controversies7/10Points deducted for controversies or its business model. The finding is under question 10.
A score changes when the evidence does. We use new published evidence at the next rescore. Anyone can send us new evidence, free. How to send it.
How is Under Armour's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleHas Under Armour's score changed?
Under Armour's score has moved from 23 to 27 across 2 recorded reviews, up 4 points.
- 23 → 27+45 November 2026
Re-scored on v2.5 (brand batch: sportswear, 2026-11-05); pre-v2.5 record
- Scored 236 April 2026
Initial score at platform launch
What evidence is Under Armour's score based on?
11 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
27% of them were published by Under Armour itself; the rest come from independent sources.
“Direct (Scope 1) GHG Emissions Metric Tons CO2e 3,614 4,838 4,236 5,801”
“Energy and climate data was reviewed by third-party consultants.”
“305-3 Other indirect (Scope 3) GHG emissions Sustainability Metrics Table > Energy”
“We will publish legally required climate and other sustainability disclosures”
“its renewable electricity target is far off track”
“Under Armour uses few eco-friendly materials.”
“we announced that we will not pursue SBTi re-validation or validation of these emissions goals or a net zero emissions commitment at this time.”
“Under Armour has yet to provide a timeline or details on the reassessment of its plans to address climate change.”
“Under Armour lags industry peers in disclosing climate mitigation actions”
“We found no public record criticisms of Under Armour relating to Nuclear or Fossil Fuels”
If you believe a source has been misread or a newer version exists, submit a challenge.
Is this your company? Claim this profile (free)
Use this score in tenders
Send the link, or the one-page score sheet. It links back to this page and every source. Free.
Open the score sheet →Send new evidence, free
Scored low because little is published? Publish what you do and send us the link, free. If it holds up, your score changes, and the change is logged on your page.
How to send evidence →Put your score on your website, free
It shows the current band, sector rank and score, and links to this page, so it changes when the score does.
Track this score
Bidding for a public contract? Check if you need a Carbon Reduction Plan, free →
Want your own page like this?
Free, independent, every source shown. Send it to any buyer who asks about your sustainability.
How does Under Armour compare with other apparel (durable / outdoor) companies?
Where Under Armour sits among apparel (durable / outdoor) peers.
Among the 58 major apparel (durable / outdoor) brands we've scored, Under Armour sits 51st of 58.
Who scores higher in Apparel (Durable / Outdoor)?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Under Armour.
Ecoalf has built a genuine circular model with 294 million plastic bottles recycled and measurable ocean cleanup impact, but fails to publish Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions figures despite rapid 20% annual growth.
See the breakdown →Vivienne Westwood conducts sustainability assessments but discloses almost no results.
See the breakdown →Versace has no brand-level emissions data, relying on opaque parent-company reporting that obscures actual performance.
See the breakdown →Which companies moved this week, and why.
One email, every Sunday. Score changes, new research, the stories behind the numbers. Free.
We'll send one email to confirm. No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.
Checking a company?
Search free →Asked to prove you're sustainable?
Get your business scored, free →Been scored?
Find your page and claim it, free →Scores are free. Nobody can pay to change a score, speed it up or hide it.