Nike vs Adidas: Which Sportswear Giant Has Cleaner Supply Chains?
Nike and Adidas are the two largest sportswear companies on the planet. Between them, they control roughly 40% of the global athletic footwear market and employ hundreds of thousands of workers across sprawling supply chains in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and beyond.
Both companies publish detailed sustainability reports. Both claim to be committed to ethical sourcing. But when you look past the corporate disclosures and examine what court filings, labour investigations, regulatory actions, and NGO reports actually reveal, a more complicated picture emerges.
We scored both companies across 11 independent ethical dimensions using independently verifiable data. No self-assessments. No CSR brochures. Just cited evidence from public sources.
The Full Scorecard
Here is how Nike and Adidas compare across every dimension Mashinii measures.
| Dimension | Nike (NKE) | Adidas (ADS) | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planet-Friendly Business | -30 | -20 | Adidas |
| Honest & Fair Business | -30 | -20 | Adidas |
| No War, No Weapons | 0 | +10 | Adidas |
| Fair Pay & Worker Respect | -30 | -30 | Tied |
| Better Health for All | +20 | +20 | Tied |
| Safe & Smart Tech | -30 | -40 | Nike |
| Kind to Animals | -20 | -30 | Nike |
| Respect for Cultures & Communities | +25 | +10 | Nike |
| Fair Money & Economic Opportunity | 0 | 0 | Tied |
| Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | -30 | -10 | Adidas |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | 0 | +40 | Adidas |
| Average | -11.4 | -6.4 | Adidas |
Adidas leads on 5 of 11 dimensions. Nike leads on 3. They tie on 3. Overall, Adidas scores a -6.4 average to Nike's -11.4 -- neither is strong in absolute terms, but Adidas carries fewer severe negatives across the board.
View Nike's full score breakdown →
View Adidas's full score breakdown →
Deep Dive: Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing
This is the dimension most directly relevant to the question in the title. How clean are these supply chains, really?
Nike: -30
Nike has been a member of the Fair Labor Association since 1999 and achieved accreditation in 2008. The company maintains a Supplier Code of Conduct that prohibits forced labour and child labour, and in fiscal year 2023 reported $1.4 billion in cumulative spend on diverse suppliers, including women-led businesses.
However, the independent data tells a different story. According to public reports, accusations of $2.2 million in unpaid wages to 4,000 garment workers in Cambodia have raised questions about supply chain oversight. A Canadian investigation was opened into the company regarding possible use of forced Uyghur labour. Shareholders have voted against proposals to enhance supply chain accountability, and external assessments have flagged gaps between Nike's stated policies and on-the-ground enforcement.
Nike's -30 on this dimension reflects the significant gap between its published supply chain commitments and what court filings, government investigations, and NGO reports have documented.
Adidas: -10
Adidas holds FLA accreditation and received the Stop Slavery Award for its anti-forced-labour work. In 2023, the company conducted 499 social compliance audits across its supply chain, with 82% of those audits being unannounced. Adidas aims for 90% of strategic Tier 1 suppliers to achieve a minimum "4S" rating by 2025.
That said, Adidas is not without issues. Allegations of ongoing labour rights violations in supplier factories persist in investigative reports. The company has faced scrutiny over the gap between its audit programme and working conditions documented by external observers. Its -10 score indicates a supply chain that is more transparent and better monitored than Nike's, but still carries identifiable risks.
The gap: Adidas leads by 20 points. Its more extensive audit programme, higher accreditation standards, and fewer documented forced labour allegations give it an edge -- though neither company scores positively on this dimension.
Learn more about how we score supply chain ethics →
Deep Dive: Fair Pay & Worker Respect
Both companies score identically here: -30. This is their shared weakness.
Nike: -30
According to public records, shareholders rejected proposals to strengthen workers' rights protections. A class-action lawsuit in California alleged labour law violations, including improper wage payments and insufficient breaks. Reports of $2.2 million in unpaid wages to garment workers in Cambodia further highlight enforcement gaps. Nike maintains a Code of Conduct and partnerships aimed at improving conditions, but the frequency and severity of documented violations weigh heavily in our scoring.
Adidas: -30
Adidas scored over 90% in training suppliers, monitoring compliance, and providing grievance mechanisms. The company conducted 499 social compliance audits in 2023 and is expanding its human rights risk management system. Yet investigative reports continue to document instances where these systems fall short in practice. The gap between Adidas's monitoring infrastructure and actual outcomes at the factory level keeps its score at -30.
The takeaway: Neither company has solved the fundamental challenge of garment industry supply chains. Both operate in countries where labour enforcement is weak, and both face persistent allegations despite extensive monitoring programmes. This is the dimension where sportswear investors face the most concentrated ethical risk.
Learn more about how we score worker rights →
Deep Dive: Planet-Friendly Business
Environmental performance is where both companies have invested heavily in public messaging. But the data tells a more nuanced story.
Nike: -30
Nike has achieved a 69% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at owned or operated facilities compared to a 2015 baseline, surpassing its initial 65% target. The company reports that 96% of energy used in its owned and operated facilities comes from renewable sources, with a goal of reaching 100%.
But Nike's Scope 3 emissions -- the vast majority of its carbon footprint, generated across its supply chain -- remain significant and difficult to independently verify. A 2023 lawsuit alleged that Nike falsely marketed products as sustainable, claiming that 90% of products advertised as using recycled materials did not contain them. The gap between Nike's operational emissions reductions and its full value chain impact drives the -30 score.
Adidas: -20
Adidas reported Scope 3 emissions of 5,894,811 tons CO2e in 2023, but achieved a 24% year-on-year reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions. The company targets climate neutrality in its own operations by 2025 and a 30% reduction in value chain emissions by 2030, with net-zero aspirations for 2050.
Adidas's environmental score benefits from more transparent emissions reporting across scopes and fewer greenwashing-related legal proceedings. It still scores negatively overall, reflecting the enormous carbon footprint inherent in global apparel manufacturing and distribution.
The gap: Adidas leads by 10 points. Both companies score negatively, but Nike's greenwashing lawsuit and larger gap between marketing claims and verified performance push it further into negative territory.
Learn more about how we score environmental impact →
Where Nike Leads
Nike outperforms Adidas on three dimensions.
Respect for Cultures & Communities: Nike +25, Adidas +10
Nike's N7 programme has invested over $12.1 million in more than 300 organisations supporting Indigenous communities since 2009. The company's partnership with NFL clubs committed $3.2 million to enhance access to football for Indigenous youth. Nike's Native American & Friends Network and sustained engagement with tribal communities drive a notably higher score than Adidas's more general community investment approach.
Kind to Animals: Nike -20, Adidas -30
Both companies score negatively here. Nike has committed to sourcing wool from suppliers certified under the Responsible Wool Standard and ceased using kangaroo skins by the end of 2023. Nike also launched vegan-friendly classic sneakers with animal-free adhesives. Adidas has made similar commitments -- joining the Fur Free Retailer programme and committing to the Responsible Down Standard -- but more extensive use of animal-derived materials across its product lines and more documented concerns from animal welfare organisations contribute to a lower score.
Safe & Smart Tech: Nike -30, Adidas -40
Neither company performs well on data privacy and technology safety. Nike has implemented cybersecurity measures including risk management, third-party assessments, and employee training. However, its app practices have raised data privacy concerns due to the collection and sharing of sensitive customer data.
Adidas scores lower here, driven by a 2018 data breach affecting millions of customers and a 2022 breach in Morocco impacting over 62,000 clients. Multiple data breach incidents with exposed personal information push Adidas further into negative territory on this dimension.
Where Adidas Leads
Adidas's most decisive advantage comes from sustainable products.
Zero Waste & Sustainable Products: Nike 0, Adidas +40
This is the widest gap between the two companies on any dimension. Adidas achieved 99% usage of recycled polyester in its products by 2023. Its Three Loop Strategy -- focused on recycled materials, recyclable products, and biodegradable materials -- has produced measurable results. The company aims for 90% of its articles to be sustainable by 2025.
Nike scores a neutral 0 on this dimension, indicating insufficient evidence of significant progress or significant failure. For a company of Nike's scale and stated sustainability ambitions, the absence of independently verifiable progress on waste and product sustainability is itself a finding.
No War, No Weapons: Nike 0, Adidas +10
Neither company manufactures weapons or has significant defence exposure. Adidas receives a modest positive score based on its Adidas Foundation, established in 2023 to support sustainable development and peace promotion through sport. Nike scores a neutral 0, with no relevant data in either direction.
What the Numbers Mean for Investors
Both Nike and Adidas carry negative average scores in our analysis. This is consistent with the broader apparel and footwear industry, where complex global supply chains create persistent ethical risks that corporate monitoring programmes struggle to fully address.
If you are choosing between the two as an investment based on ethical criteria, the data suggests Adidas carries fewer severe negatives and demonstrates stronger performance on product sustainability and supply chain transparency. Nike's edge lies in community engagement -- particularly with Indigenous communities -- and marginally better performance on animal welfare and data privacy.
Neither company can be described as scoring well. Both face ongoing challenges in worker rights, environmental impact, and corporate governance. The question for investors is not which company is ethical, but which company's specific risk profile aligns with their priorities.
How We Score
Every score on Mashinii is built from independently verifiable sources: court filings, regulatory actions, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. Companies cannot influence their scores through self-reporting or ESG disclosures.
We score across 11 independent dimensions -- not a single blended rating. This means a company can score well on community engagement but poorly on supply chain ethics, and you see both numbers.
Learn more about our methodology →
Check How Your Sportswear Holdings Score
If you hold Nike, Adidas, or any consumer brand in your portfolio, you can see exactly how they score across all 11 dimensions.