Our editors curate highly rated brands that are first assessed by our rigorous ratings system. Buying through our links may earn us a commission—supporting the work we do. Learn more.
Nike and Adidas are two of the largest sportswear brands out there. Both sponsor major athletes and events, drive trends with their sneakers, and produce a huge amount of the world’s sportswear. But both been criticised for their ethics over the years. So, is either of them sustainable? What are their values like? Is Adidas better than Nike? Scroll on to find out.
The battle of the sportswear giants
Nike and Adidas are two of the biggest sportswear brands in the world, so chances are you’ve thought about buying some kit from them at some point. New running trainers, perhaps? Some yoga leggings, or a sports bra? These brands offer it all. But which one treats people, the planet, and animals better? We investigated for you.
Is Adidas better than Nike? Long story short: Nike falls just behind Adidas, but there’s not much in it. Neither brand is a shining star, and this is disappointing given their potential to lead by example.
Read on for a deeper dive into both brands’ track records on the issues that matter most.
Nike—losing its lead
In the ‘90s, Nike gained a reputation for its terrible human rights record. It has done work to change in the decades since, and while it’s generally agreed that Nike has improved, the brand still appears to be reluctant to do better without being pushed by activists, campaigners, and organisations.
One example of that came in January 2026, when Nike finally agreed to compensate approximately 3,300 workers at Thai supplier factory Hong Seng Knitting, who were allegedly pressured into taking unpaid leave during the Covid 19 pandemic. It’s positive news, but it took five long years of pressure from organisations including the Clean Clothes Campaign, Fair Labor Association, Worker Rights Consortium, and Partners for Dignity and Rights, which demonstrates just how hesitant the brand has been to do right by the workers in its supply chain.
And Nike still hasn’t signed the International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry, an important initiative to improve factory safety that was introduced after the death of more than 1,000 garment workers in the Rana Plaza factory collapse. Nike does at least audit some of its supply chain, including all of the final production stage.
It also claims to ensure it pays a living wage in some of the final production stage, but expansion is needed to make sure everyone receives proper compensation, from those working in the raw materials stage to the manufacturing. On top of that, the brand has been called out recently for the accuracy of its claims that some factory workers in Indonesia earn double their region’s minimum wage, which union representatives and workers say is not the case.
And while Nike has in the past pushed for diversity in its marketing and hiring practices, it has backtracked recently according to the Business of Fashion, which reported that the brand has not published a 2025 impact report and walked back its Black History Month and Pride collections.
Over the years from 2021 to 2023, Nike’s score on the Fashion Transparency Index fluctuated between the 41-50% and 51-60% brackets. For one of the world’s biggest brands, this just isn’t good enough. The brand markets itself as a leader in sportswear and innovation, so why isn’t it leading in transparency, too?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the people category Nike scores a dismal “Not Good Enough”.
Thanks to its use of some lower-impact materials and setting some science-based targets, Nike scores “It’s a Start” for the planet. The brand has also introduced a recycling programme, and has designed some of its products for disassembly. But for animals, Nike’s use of various cruel animal-based fabrics like down and exotic animal skin, as well as its lack of traceability here, means it is rated “Not Good Enough”. One positive point here though is that the brand does state it sources from non-mulesed sheep.
Nike certainly has the influence and financial power to improve its practices beyond the meagre efforts it is currently doing, and that’s why Nike just scrapes an “It’s a Start” rating overall.
Adidas—better, but not by much
Adidas has been subject to many of the same criticisms as Nike concerning worker exploitation. More recently, both brands have been strongly criticised for failing to do enough to pay a living wage to workers across their supply chains despite increasing profits and sponsorship payments to sports stars and teams.
Like Nike, Adidas works with the Fair Labor Association and does ensure a living wage is paid in some of the final production stage. But it’s nowhere near good enough when the entire supply chain ought to be compensated to livable standards.
The 2018 Foul Play report by the Clean Clothes Campaign and Collectif Ethique sur l’Etiquette highlighted the difference between the ever-increasing amount of money paid on sponsorships to sports stars and other marketing expenses, compared with the reduced share of the final price tag of sports gear that’s paid to workers in the supply chain.
Adidas’s score of 51-60% was consistent through 2021-2023 on the Fashion Transparency Index. This score reflects the brand disclosing its suppliers and subcontractors (a win for transparency), supporting freedom of association, and being a founding signatory of the Bangladesh Fire & Safety Accord, which preceded the International Accord mentioned above. Still, all things considered, Adidas is “Not Good Enough” for people.
When it comes to the environment, Adidas scores “It’s a Start”, and has plenty of work to do in crucial areas like biodiversity. It has set a science based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both its direct operations and supply chain, and it claims it’s on track, and it publishes a breakdown of the lower-impact materials it uses, which is a medium proportion.
It was also caught up in a greenwashing scandal in late 2021 when it was found to be misleading consumers with its wording around recycled content in a new pair of Stan Smith sneakers. This is a prime example of greenwashing claims and campaigns, for which brands must be held accountable. Another example of that came just last year, when in April a German court banned Adidas’ “climate neutrality” advertising for being too vague and misleading consumers.
The brand is “It’s a Start” for animals, and while it too sources from non-mulesed sheep, the brand hasn’t aligned its formal animal welfare policy with the Five Domains, and it still needs to but it still needs to find more ethical alternatives to leather, wool, cashmere, and down.
Adidas is “It’s a Start” overall.
The verdict
Is Nike better than Adidas? Overall, Adidas comes out slightly ahead of Nike with a better score for animals, but it’s certainly not perfect.
Both companies rate “It’s a Start”, which means neither is doing (or at least, disclosing) enough work to minimise the massive impact that their behemoth businesses are having on the environment, and the people and animals involved or affected by their operations.
What to do if you already own items from Nike and Adidas
The most sustainable item is the one you own right now. So if you’ve already got clothes or sneakers from Nike or Adidas, the best option is to wear and repair them until they’re worn out and then responsibly dispose of them. If you’re in the US, you can drop off old Nike sneakers to a participating store for recycling. Adidas does not appear to offer recycling for its customers’ worn out items.
Where to find more sustainable alternative sportswear
Another great source for activewear and sneakers is secondhand shops and marketplaces, prolonging the life of items already in circulation. And if you’re in need of something new that better matches your values, check out these more ethical alternatives below, which all have more solid results for people, the planet, and animals than Nike and Adidas.
