The sportswear industry is one of the most thoroughly documented cases of the design-country versus manufacturing-country split in global trade. Nike designs in Beaverton, Oregon (USA, 7.85 EIU). Adidas designs in Herzogenaurach, Germany (8.58 EIU). On Running designs in Zurich, Switzerland (9.15 EIU). Then they manufacture primarily in Vietnam (2.97 EIU — one-party authoritarian), Indonesia (6.53 EIU — just below threshold), and China (2.12 EIU). Over 50% of premium sneaker production by value occurs in Vietnam alone. This geographical fragmentation of value allows brands to claim European or American origin in terms of design and R&D while physical production occurs in countries with dramatically different democratic and labor profiles.
Vietnam's EIU score of 2.97 places it in authoritarian regime territory: the Communist Party of Vietnam does not hold genuinely competitive elections, restricts independent union formation, and prosecutes activists and journalists under broad national security laws. The irony for the democratic consumer is that the countries producing the products of the world's most respected sportswear brands — which spend considerable budget on sustainability and labor rights marketing — include some of the least democratic manufacturing environments available. Indonesia at 6.53 sits just below the 6.5 threshold. China at 2.12 is the world's largest manufacturing economy for textiles and footwear, and among the lowest-scoring democracies in the index.
New Balance (Boston, USA, 7.85 EIU) is the most cited case of genuine democratic manufacturing in athletic footwear. The company is the only large-scale sneaker brand that has maintained continuous US production — across five factories in Massachusetts and Maine — while all its major competitors moved manufacturing entirely to Asia. The Made in USA label on New Balance models covers a real US manufacturing process, not a final stitching operation on Asian-produced uppers. The price premium is 30-40% over Asian-manufactured equivalents. For consumers where democratic manufacturing is the priority criterion, Made in USA New Balance represents the clearest available choice in the mass-market athletic footwear category.
Adidas (Germany, 8.58 EIU) has been a visible leader in supply chain transparency for its sector. The company's commitments to the Ethical Trading Initiative, OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, and published factory audit programs represent some of the most advanced transparency frameworks in global sportswear. Its published audit reports include findings of irregularities at third and fourth-tier suppliers, which is unusual honesty for the industry. The democratic limitation is structural: Adidas manufactures in Vietnam, Indonesia, and China despite being a German company with strong corporate democratic values. The alignment between where it wants to be on democratic criteria and where its production actually is remains a gap that economic reality has not yet closed.
On Running (Switzerland, 9.15 EIU) has the highest-scoring democratic corporate origin of any major athletic footwear brand. Founded in Zurich in 2010, listed on the NYSE in 2021 with a valuation now exceeding $20 billion, it remains fundamentally controlled by its Swiss founders and European institutional investors. Switzerland's EIU score of 9.15 places it among the world's most democratic countries. Its manufacturing is Asian — primarily Vietnam and China — but the corporate control, IP, and decision-making remain in Switzerland. Scarpa (Asolo, Italy, 7.67 EIU) manufactures technical alpine and mountain footwear in the Veneto, a tradition of Italian craft manufacturing that has resisted offshoring better than road running footwear. For consumers prioritizing technical hiking and climbing footwear with genuine European manufacturing, Scarpa is the strongest available option.
The practical democratic priority ranking for athletic footwear: (1) New Balance Made in USA — democratic manufacturing and ownership, highest available combination. (2) Scarpa Italian-manufactured technical footwear — European manufacturing for alpine/mountain use. (3) On Running and Adidas — highest democratic corporate origin for major brands (Switzerland/Germany), with published supplier audit transparency despite Asian manufacturing. (4) Samsung-brand athletic footwear (South Korea, 8.09 EIU) when available — Korean corporate ownership above threshold. Brands that should rank lowest on democratic criteria are those combining Chinese corporate ownership with Chinese manufacturing (several of the fastest-growing online-direct Chinese athletic brands entering the European market). The consumer action that moves the needle most beyond brand selection: demand published supplier social audits with real findings — not just compliance pass rates but documented irregularities and corrective actions taken. This is the information that differentiates brands with genuine supply chain accountability from those with compliance theater.
An emerging trend in athletic footwear points in the right direction from a democratic perspective: the second-hand and circular economy for shoes. Platforms like Vinted, eBay, and dedicated footwear resale markets are creating active secondary markets for quality shoes that extend product lifespan. From a democratic standpoint, buying a Used New Balance Made in USA provides the democratic manufacturing profile of American production without the new-product premium. And any second-hand shoe, regardless of manufacturing origin, reduces demand for new production in democratically problematic chains. The circular economy for footwear is compatible with democratic criteria and complements them: the most effective approach is to buy right the first time — choosing brands with better democratic origin profiles — and then extend product lifespan through the second-hand market rather than replacing frequently with cheap, democratically problematic new production.
The biomechanics research funding dimension creates an indirect democratic supply chain argument for premium athletic shoes. Brands that invest in biomechanical research — New Balance in Boston, On Running in Zurich, Asics in Kobe — employ research staff in high-democracy countries, generate intellectual property under democratic legal frameworks, and pay taxes on that research activity in democratic jurisdictions. The running shoe's value comes overwhelmingly from the design and research embodied in the foam formulation and sole geometry, not from the physical manufacturing labor. Choosing brands that invest in democratic-country research centers supports democratic employment and tax bases even when final assembly occurs in Vietnam or Indonesia — a nuance that the simplistic 'made in' label obscures.
For women's athletic shoes specifically, the democratic analysis has an additional dimension: brands headquartered in high-scoring democracies consistently rank better on gender inclusion in professional sport sponsorship, women's product development investment, and pay equity in corporate headquarters. Nordic-origin brands and Swiss On Running have been noted in several sport industry ESG analyses for above-average performance on gender equity metrics, which aligns with the democratic governance characteristics of their home countries. That alignment is not coincidental — the same cultural values that produce high EIU governance scores also tend to produce more equitable corporate cultures.
This article was originally published at Democratic Market. Read the full version with additional analysis on our site.
