Nike scores 7 points higher than adidas on SINK.
Nike is more sustainable according to SINK's scores, scoring 44/100 vs adidas's 37/100, a difference of 7 points.
Nike scores 44/100 on SINK (Below expectations). Nike's footprint was 8,266,474 tCO2e in its 2024 financial year, almost all in its supply chain, and it has fallen each year from 11.8 million tonnes in FY20. The fall came as sales fell, and supply-chain emissions were 20% below FY15 in FY25 against a 30% goal. Its own sites used 96% renewable electricity in FY24, and Nike says it passed 100% in FY25. Its near-term targets are SBTi-validated: cuts of 75% in Scope 1 and 2 and 35% in Scope 3 by 2030 from FY20. It published no annual impact report in 2025, lost about 30% of its sustainability staff from December 2023, and pays dues to trade groups that have opposed climate rules.
adidas scores 37/100 on SINK (Below expectations). adidas' footprint was 6,364,851 tCO2e in 2025, not counting the use of its products, and it rose 18% on 2024 while net sales rose 5%. Scope 3 is 5% below its 2022 baseline, against a 42% cut due by 2030. About 43% of the electricity in its own operations is renewable, mostly through unbundled certificates, with a European power purchase agreement that started in 2025. Its targets are SBTi-validated, with net zero by 2050, and it buys no carbon credits. In March 2025 a German court, in a case brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe, barred its 'climate neutral by 2050' advertising as misleading.
Both companies are rated on the same 10-question SINK rubric: Scope 1/2/3 carbon footprint, energy source, nature and biodiversity, resource use, water, emissions trajectory, science-based targets, transparency, and controversies. Scores are 0–100, based on public data, and fully reproducible.
See the full leaderboard: 1,023 companies ranked.
View the full leaderboard →