The ethical running shoes Canada market has expanded exponentially over the previous five years and shows no signs of slowing down. According to current forecasts, the global sports footwear industry will be worth over 95 billion dollars by 2025, almost doubling its 2016 value (55 billion). The World Shoe Yearbook estimates that approximately 3 trillion pairs of sneakers are manufactured yearly (often under exploitative circumstances), with sneakers making up the majority. What are the effects of the fast-expanding shoe business on the environment?

The Sneaker Production Carbon Footprint

Sneaker manufacturing is very environmentally destructive, accounting for 1.4 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, which is substantial considering that air travel accounts for 2.5 percent of all emissions.

According to research done by MIT in 2013, a standard pair of running shoes emits roughly 13.6 kg of CO2. “Unusually high for a device that does not need energy or power-driving components,” says Randolph Kirchain, one of the study’s co-authors. Industrial accounts for most of these emissions, which is predictable given the manufacturing methods and materials involved.

Plastic and foam materials are used to make the vast majority of shoes. All of these petroleum-based polymers (polyester, thermal polyurethane (TPU), terephthalate (PET), and ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA)) emit worrying amounts of CO2.

Dependence of the Sneaker Industry on Plastic

Why is it so hard to transition away from plastic use? Because sneakers are subjected to much more abuse than a standard pair of shoes, durability is crucial, and synthetic materials, regrettably, outperform natural materials in terms of performance. Plastic has improved the quality of shoes by making them lighter, quicker, comfier, and more available to people all over the globe. 

Another issue is that so many shoes are produced from a complex blend of polymers sewn and glued together, making them difficult to recycle. ‘The boundaries of plastic recycling are now rather difficult,’ according to the author of the National Geographic piece. Recycling prolongs the process but does not fix the fundamental issue since it requires energy to gather the materials, recreate them into their second life. In many instances, that past life is their final.’

 

What Do Brand Responsibilities Regarding Their Environmental Impact?

Only 40% of organizations have a sustainable program in place, despite 7 out of 10 companies discussing sustainability. Big industry heavyweights like Adidas and Nike and several smaller brands attempting to lower their carbon footprint in various ways, such as via production procedures or material breakthroughs.

In 2015, Adidas collaborated with environmental organization Parley for the Oceans to release the first achievement shoe with an upper made from marine plastic squandering and deep-sea fishing nets (fishing nets hung vertically so that fish are trapped by their gills); in 2018, Nike named the brand using very recycled polyester in the sector for the sixth year in a row by Textile Exchange; between 2010 and 2018, the brand recycled 6.4 billion plastic water bottles. Nike is also pursuing carbon neutrality by using renewable energy sources in its facilities.