After reading press releases and reviews and attending feature briefings on hundreds of product launches every year, I've noticed something curious. Outdoor brands almost always prioritise sustainability, while running brands often lead with performance.
I've been covering fitness and outdoor brands for nearly a decade, a time that also coincided with many companies placing greater emphasis on sustainability credentials in their product messaging.
This is especially apparent with outdoor companies, which often tout their circularity prowess before moving on to talking about the performance of their new waterproof jacket.
Fitness companies are different. How often do you buy a pair of running shoes because they say the foam is made with more recycled materials? Most runners care about speed and energy return (and, increasingly, how the product looks). So fitness companies sell them that.
All that said, not all outdoor companies are sustainability champions, and not all fitness brands are wasteful polluters. Most companies are trying – generally speaking – to align their practices with circularity, but there certainly is a gap in how they communicate these efforts. Why that might be is anyone's best guess, but I've narrowed it down to five potential reasons.
Outdoor brands sell values – fitness brands sell outcomes
Outdoor companies are selling values, not just products. You aren't just buying a coat but also a promise that the garment will be functional for a long time thanks to material choices, repair ecosystems and thoughtful design.
Since most of their customers enjoy spending time in nature, brands naturally associate themselves with wild places. Sure, this fleece jacket looks nice, but it's also made from reclaimed ocean plastic – and you like the ocean, right?
On the other hand, fitness brands sell you outcomes. You are buying a shoe, a vest or a pair of shorts because they promise new PBs. You are purchasing better sweat-wicking, improved temperature management, reduced chafing, lighter weight, or greater energy return.
All of these can coexist with sustainable manufacturing processes and material choices, but people don't necessarily require them, and sadly, it's still cheaper to produce goods in an environmentally unfriendly way, so fitness companies aren't in a rush to change.
Elite sport makes sustainability messaging difficult
When you're trying to shave two minutes off your marathon PB, environmental credentials inevitably become secondary to weight, lockdown, energy return and race-day performance.
Using recycled foams or alternative materials may involve compromises, whether real or simply perceived – it doesn't really matter. As long as people think the product might put them at a disadvantage relative to their competitors, it matters little how circular it is.
Imagine Nike marketing a marathon shoe by saying it contains 60% recycled foam. The next question becomes: "Great, but is it slower?" Even if the answer is "no", the brand has already created doubt.
Outdoor apparel doesn't face the same scrutiny. People certainly chase summits, distance and personal goals, but durability has always been just as important as outright performance.
Nobody rejects a shell jacket because it contains recycled nylon. If anything, some people will actively choose it because of that.
Product lifespan is fundamentally different
Outdoor companies actively encourage people to buy less. Companies like Patagonia and Arc'teryx tell customers to repair their garments and even provide repair services to help keep products in use. Of course, these services are often exclusive to the brand's own garments, but they reinforce the idea that good kit should last.
Changing a zip on your waterproof jacket or sewing a patch onto your hiking trousers can often be done quickly. Some brands, such as Danner and Lowa, will even resole certain boots (albeit with caveats). An average hiker may happily wear the same pair of boots for a decade and be disappointed if they have to replace them.
Runners, on the other hand, often have a shoe rotation that changes every few months. One pair for tempo runs, another for long runs, one for racing and one for recovery. Even if you only own one pair, you'll eventually replace it because the foam simply doesn't feel the same anymore.
It's difficult to build a "buy it for life" message around something designed to wear out.
Outdoor consumers care more
This is probably uncomfortable, but it might also be true. Research suggests outdoor consumers place greater importance on sustainability than the average sportswear buyer.
One recent study found outdoor enthusiasts associated sustainability not just with recycled materials but also with durability, repairability and product longevity. Even then, they were only willing to pay a modest premium for those attributes.
If you hike because you love national parks, mountains or forests, climate change feels tangible. If you mainly train for a 10K PB, sustainability may simply rank lower than comfort, fit and pace. Brands respond to the incentives customers give them.
The industry is already changing – but quietly
I spoke a lot about how outdoor companies are ahead of fitness brands when it comes to sustainability in general, but that doesn't mean there aren't good examples of the latter group trying to make a difference.
ASICS, for example, publishes Product Carbon Footprints for many of its shoes, which is arguably a more mature approach than broad sustainability claims.
Other examples include Adidas' Move For The Planet initiatives, Nike's recycled materials and manufacturing targets, Brooks' bio-based midsoles and CarbonNeutral Ghost programme, Puma's RE:FIBRE programme, Salomon's circular Index project, On's Cyclon subscription model and Hoka's increasing use of recycled uppers.
Perhaps the question isn't whether fitness brands care less about sustainability than outdoor brands. Perhaps they've simply concluded that sustainability doesn't sell running shoes in the same way it sells waterproof jackets.
Performance remains the headline, while environmental progress is relegated to the small print. Whether that changes will ultimately depend on us. If consumers start rewarding brands that put sustainability on equal footing with speed, the messaging will change almost overnight.
