Both companies are tied at 44/100 on SINK.
Both companies are tied at 44/100 on SINK.
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.
Puma scores 44/100 on SINK (Below expectations). PUMA's footprint was 1,520,806 tCO2e in 2025, almost all in its supply chain, and it fell 13% on 2024. Sales fell 13.1% in the same year and emissions per euro of revenue rose 4.8%, so the fall tracks lower volume. Its own sites' renewable electricity rests mostly on unbundled certificates, its core supplier factories were at 32.3%, and the 2025 coal-boiler phase-out was missed. Its SBTi-approved targets cut Scope 1 and 2 by 90% and its main supply-chain emissions by 33% by 2030 from 2017. Secondary materials rose to 41.7% of material weight, but apparel water use per piece rose 220.6%. Stand.earth criticised it in 2023 for labelling biomass energy carbon neutral.
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 →