Smith Vantage MIPS Sustainability Report

The Vantage’s hybrid in-mold construction pairs a sturdy ABS plastic top with a lighter in-mold lower section to balance impact resistance and weight. While the in-mold portion is more susceptible to cosmetic wear, the helmet’s components—including the Boa dial and padding—have proven exceptionally resilient over time. If treated with reasonable care, the Vantage should last through many seasons of consistent use. This is a helmet with good long-term durability.

Choosing durable outdoor gear is perhaps the most effective way to reduce environmental impact—the longer it lasts, the less it needs to be produced. Our proprietary longevity rating evaluates overall build quality based on factors such as materials, fabric denier, component durability (including zippers and toggles), real-world performance as reported by our field testers, and our experiences with the brand. Overall, we feel strongly that reducing overall consumption is a cornerstone of sustainability.

The Smith Vantage MIPS does not use any recycled materials. However, Smith incorporates recycled water bottles for the frame of its CORE sunglasses line. Additionally, the goggles in its MAG line include a lens cleaning cloth made from recycled water bottles.

Outdoor gear can be made partly or entirely from recycled materials, the most common being nylon, polyester, wool, and down. Some products include a single recycled component or a partially recycled fabric, while others are 100% recycled (generally excluding accessories like zippers, Velcro, toggles, etc.). For our sustainability ratings, we evaluate the amount of recycled materials in a particular product and assign points accordingly.

Smith owns and operates a factory in Clearfield, Utah. We give brands points for responsible manufacturing if they produce the bulk of their products in the U.S. due to strict labor and environmental regulations and (typically) a lower carbon footprint due to reduced transportation between factories compared to global networks. However, we have been unable to confirm how much of the company’s production occurs in Utah or what regulations or standards are in place at that facility. Therefore, Smith does not meet our criteria for responsible manufacturing.

This criterion evaluates a brand's commitment to fair wages, safe working conditions, and reducing its environmental impact throughout the production process. Responsible manufacturing is most commonly demonstrated through certifications and membership in programs such as Fair Trade Certified, Fair Wear Foundation, Worldwide Responsible Accreditation of Production, and the Fair Labor Association. We also recognize brands that prioritize local production, such as those that manufacture primarily in the United States or Europe, to reduce carbon emissions, maintain better oversight of working conditions, and comply with strict social and environmental regulations.

In 2022, Smith took a big step toward reducing packaging by eliminating the plastic windows on its goggle boxes and the plastic poly bags used for goggle and lens protection. The company estimates this move saves 2.2 million poly bags annually. The brand also uses Forest Stewardship Council-certified packaging and partners with Gogglesoc to include recycled 2-in-1 cleaning cloths and lens protectors with its MAG series goggles.

Packaging can add significant waste to an outdoor gear purchase and often ends up in landfills. Many brands are using recycled packaging and/or making efforts to reduce packaging altogether. For example, they may use a certain percentage of recycled cardboard or make efforts to use less plastic or paper across their packaging operation. In some cases, brands also use Forest Stewardship Council-certified paper products, which helps to ensure sustainable sourcing of forest materials.

Smith is owned by the Safilo Group, which tracks its greenhouse gas emissions across all subsidiary brands. Safilo Group has a Science Based Targets Initiative-verified goal of reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 70% by 2030, compared to a 2022 baseline. The company is also committed to reducing Scope 3 emissions by 25% by 2030. Since its 2022 baseline, Safilo has already made measurable progress, reducing Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions—which is notable, as few companies have achieved absolute reductions in Scope 3 emissions, which typically account for the majority of a company’s impact.

This criterion evaluates whether this brand measures its greenhouse gas emissions, along with its commitment to reduction and transparency in reporting. Typically, we require brands to follow established frameworks such as the Higg Index, Greenhouse Gas Protocol, or The Change Climate Project. Most companies use the widely recognized scope categorization system for measuring brand emissions. Those who earn the most points in this category have emissions reduction goals verified by the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global organization that helps companies set greenhouse gas reduction targets in line with the goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C. To verify their goals through SBTi, companies undergo a rigorous assessment process and continual follow-up to ensure consistent progress towards achieving their targets.

Smith does not publish its own annual impact report, but its parent company, the Safilo Group, does. The report mentions some of Smith’s sustainability efforts but is less thorough than other impact reports we have seen, so the brand does not receive full points in this category.

An impact report is an important step toward transparency and accountability on the sustainability front. These reports vary in form but generally cover topics such as material sourcing, greenhouse gas emissions tracking, waste and water usage, supply chain analysis, and packaging efforts. For our sustainability ratings, we evaluate this criterion based on the depth and quality of the information provided in the report, and how often it is produced. Some brands produce their own impact report, while others are published by their parent company. In practice, we’ve found that reports produced by individual brands include more detailed information about their sustainability efforts.