Nike

Our “Planet” rating evaluates brands based on the environmental policies in their supply chains, from carbon emissions and wastewater to business models and product circularity. Here we rate Nike “It’s a Start”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It uses some lower-impact materials including recycled materials.

• To minimise waste, it recycles some of its textile offcuts.

• It supports industry organisations that work to address the impacts of microplastics.

• There’s no evidence it’s taking actions to protect biodiversity in its supply chain.

• It’s set a target to eliminate hazardous chemicals by 2025 but claims it’s not on track.

Workers’ rights are central to our “People” rating, which assess brands’ policies and practices on everything from child labour to living wages and gender equality. Here we rate Nike “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It partly traces its supply chain including the final and some of the second production stages.

• The brand claims to audit some of its supply chain but doesn’t specify what percentage.

• It ensures some workers in the final production stage are paid living wages, though not in its entire supply chain.

• It’s taken insufficient steps to remediate its links to cotton sourced from Xinjiang, a region in China at risk of Uyghur forced labour.

Brands’ animal welfare policies and, where applicable, how well they trace their animal-derived products are the focus of our “Animals” rating. Here we rate Nike “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It’s published a general statement about minimising animal suffering but not a formal animal welfare policy.
• It appears to use leather, wool, shearling, and down.

• It doesn’t appear to use fur, angora, exotic animal hair, or exotic animal skin.

• It traces some animal-derived materials to the first production stage.

Based on all publicly available information we’ve reviewed, we rate Nike “Not Good Enough” overall.