Search

Nike v Adidas: Who’s More Ethical and Sustainable?

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

26 Apr, 2024

This post was originally published on Good on You

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 in the world, and they have both come up against criticism over the years for their ethicality. It’s a close call, but let’s take a closer look and answer that burning question: is Adidas better than Nike?

The battle of the sportswear giants

Nike and Adidas are two of the biggest brands in the world, so chances are you’ve considered investing in some kit from each of them at some point. New running trainers, perhaps? Some stylish yoga leggings, or a decent sports bra? These brands offer it all. Because when it comes to sportswear, most people see Nike and Adidas as their first port of call. So, we crunched the ethics and sustainability numbers to find out which company treats people, the planet, and animals better than the other.

Let’s answer once and for all: is Adidas better than Nike? Long story short: Adidas falls just behind Nike, but neither brand is a shining star. Read on for a deeper dive into both brands’ track records on the issues that matter most.

Nike—on again, off again

In the 90s, Nike became notorious for its terrible human rights record. The brand says it has changed, but can it outrun the past?

It’s generally agreed Nike has improved, but there is still a way to go. The activewear giant has been criticised for allowing its suppliers to exploit workers by paying below the minimum wage, enforcing excessive working hours, and failing to provide safe working conditions. Nike also hasn’t signed the Bangladesh Fire & Safety Accord, an important initiative to improve factory safety that came into play after the death of over 1,000 garment workers in the Rana Plaza factory collapse. On the plus side, Nike has committed to not knowingly using Uzbek cotton—where forced labour and child labour have been rife—after being called out for it in early 2020. The brand also now ensures payment of a living wage in a small proportion of its supply chain.

Nike hasn’t signed the Bangladesh Fire & Safety Accord, an important initiative to improve factory safety that came into play after the death of over 1,000 garment workers in the Rana Plaza factory collapse.

In March 2017, Nike took a big step backward when it ceased allowing the NGO Workers Rights Consortium access to factories to check on labour standards. In 2021 and 2022, Nike received a score of 51-60% in the Fashion Transparency Index, showing it had started going in the right direction again, then its score dropped back down to 41-50% in the 2023 report. It’s like Nike is in an on-again-off-again relationship with doing the right thing.

But in May 2023, Nike was hit with a class action lawsuit over “greenwashed” sustainability claims. ClassAction.org reports that: “The 47-page ‘greenwashing’ lawsuit charges broadly that Nike has illegally attempted to capitalise on consumers’ preference for ‘green’ products by falsely claiming that certain apparel tagged with ‘sustainable’ claims and marketed as supporting the retailer’s waste- and carbon-reducing ‘Move to Zero’ initiative are, unbeknownst to the public, made from non-biodegradable plastic-based materials.”

All things considered, Nike scores a middling “It’s a Start” for people. Thanks to its use of some lower-impact materials and setting of science-based targets, it also rated “It’s a Start” for the planet. 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”.

Nike prides itself on making comfortable footwear, but we think some of the brand’s big-time execs should try walking in their workers’ shoes for a while and see how comfy things feel then.

We hope to see continual improvements from a big brand that can certainly afford to make them.

Nike gets an “It’s a Start” rating overall.

Adidas—losing its lead

Adidas has been subject to many of the same criticisms as Nike concerning worker exploitation, including in a report by War on Want on conditions in Bangladesh in 2012.

More recently, both brands have been strongly criticised for failing to take concrete steps towards paying a living wage to workers across their supply chain despite increasing profits and sponsorship payments to sports stars and teams. The 2018 Foul Play report by the Clean Clothes Campaign and Collectif Ethique sur l’Etiquette highlights 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.

The report calls on the brands to commit to paying living wages across their supply chain by a specific date, and other supporting actions. Adidas now has a project to improve wages in part of its supply chain and has made a public commitment to improve wages overall, which is a good step, and following up the promise with tangible results would be a big tick for the brand. But right now, it still doesn’t pay a living wage. Commitments are good, but we’re more concerned with actions the brand is taking right now.

Adidas received a score of 51-60% in the 2021, 2022, and 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, down from 61-70% a few years ago but higher than Nike’s most recent result. This score reflects the brand disclosing its suppliers and subcontractors (a win for transparency), supporting freedom of association, and signing the Bangladesh Fire & Safety Accord. Moreover, in June 2017, Adidas was singled out for praise in a report on forced labour by Know the Chain. It noted that Adidas has strong disclosure throughout its supply chain. In particular, it was the only one of five major footwear brands to disclose activities to address forced labour in specific countries.

What sets Adidas apart on the labour front is its leadership with crucial inclusivity and culture strategies and policies. Its approach includes auditing suppliers on a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) level. Adidas is responsive and happy to be held accountable in this area, which is essential for global brands to set the stage for a more transparent, ethical, and sustainable fashion industry going forward.

In February 2022, Adidas’ rating dropped from “Good” to “It’s a Start”, then down to “Not Good Enough” in November 2023 owing in part to recent human rights violations in its supply chain, including ongoing cases of wage theft in Cambodia. Our mission at Good On You is to provide consumers with the most reliable, accurate, and up-to-date information and recommendations across fashion, which means our comprehensive ratings methodology evolves to accommodate crucial movements in issues across ethics and sustainability in the industry. What we see reflected in Adidas’ rating drop is a brand not making good on its existing promises and not keeping pace with industry-wide actions for people, the planet, and animals.

Adidas still has plenty of work to do in crucial areas like biodiversity and transparency, too. 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 a slew of recent greenwashing fast fashion claims and campaigns, for which brands must be held accountable.

Take a closer look at the reasons behind the change in our deep dive into Adidas’ rating, noting that Adidas scores “It’s a Start” for the planet, and “Not Good Enough” for both people and animals.

Adidas gets a “Not Good Enough” rating overall.

The verdict

So, it seems that both companies have a trek in front of them—we hope they don’t get too many blisters along the way. Is Adidas better than Nike? Overall, Nike comes out slightly ahead of Adidas with a better score for workers, but it’s certainly not perfect.

Step up your ethics

As ever, the most sustainable item is the one in your closet. If you own a pair of Nike or Adidas sneakers but would rather not support the brands in the future, the best option is to use them until they’re worn out and then thoughtfully dispose of them. If you’re in the US or Europe, you can drop off old sneakers from any brand to a participating Nike store for recycling.

In need of new sneakers or activewear that better match your values? Check out these more ethical alternatives below, beating both Adidas and Nike at their own game, with more solid results for people, the planet, and animals. Or simply opt for second-hand Adidas or Nike products, prolonging the life of items already in circulation.

The post Nike v Adidas: Who’s More Ethical and Sustainable? appeared first on Good On You.

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

Energy Efficiency as an Imperative Climate Strategy

Energy Efficiency as an Imperative Climate Strategy

With mandatory climate statement disclosure rolling out in Australia, businesses need to start reporting on their emissions and sustainability plans for the future. As companies begin assessing the relevant risks and opportunities related to various climate scenarios, energy efficiency presents itself as an immediate climate-strategy with long-term benefits.

Commencing 1 January 2025, businesses that meet two of the three conditions — more than 500 employees, gross assets above $1 billion or $500 million or more in consolidated gross revenue — are required to lodge a climate statement, which discloses their climate-related plans, financial risks and obligations. As part of the gradual roll-out, by 1 July 2027, businesses that meet two of these conditions — more than 100 employees, gross assets above $25 million or exceeding $50 million in consolidated gross revenue — will also be required to report.

This climate statement will need to include the company’s sustainability governance, climate risks and opportunities, including those physical and transition related. They will also need to disclose their Scope 1 and 2 emissions, strategy to decarbonise, and conduct scenario analysis on the short, medium and long term impacts on the business. By the second year of reporting, businesses will also be expected to report on Scope 3 emissions.

Scenario analysis will be based on various assumptions of the state of the climate, one of which includes a possible future where global temperature has increased 2.5°C or more. They will be required to share their climate strategy and steps they are taking long-term in preparation for this scenario.

Common themes within climate strategies will include switching to renewable energy sources, electrifying fleet vehicles, purchasing carbon credits, and carbon capture and storage. Many of these methods look at reducing emissions through the energy source, or targeting the carbon aspect directly; however, climate strategies can also include reducing the amount of energy used. By investing in more energy efficient equipment, sites can maintain production whilst using less energy and producing less emissions.

When increasing energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption first, businesses will see short-term impacts; however, in the long term, they are also improving their foundation for an energy transition. Assuming no other changes, higher energy efficiency can lead to decreased energy demand, allowing for reduced system requirements when specifying and planning for self-generation or energy costs.

To understand what opportunities are available for upgrading to more energy efficient equipment, businesses can start with an energy audit to understand how energy is being consumed across site. Energy audits, like the ABB Energy Appraisal, can provide a roadmap for where and how equipment can be upgraded for the best energy saving potential. An energy audit identifies areas that can be immediately improved with existing equipment on the market, so there is no need to wait for the commercialization or development of more sustainable technology. Going beyond just changing all lights to LEDs, efficiency recommendations may include areas where variable speed drives can be added to control motor speed or upgrading from an IE3 motor to an IE5 ultra-premium efficiency or IE6 hyper-premium efficiency motor to reduce energy losses by 40% or more. This area can often be overlooked on sites as the Minimum Energy Performance Standard (MEPS) in Australia for motors is just IE2.

Mostly used in pumps, compressors, conveyors and fans, motors may seem like a minor part of a site; however, with 45% of the world’s electricity converted into motion by industrial electric motors, there are many opportunities for energy savings. In fact, a recent survey commissioned by ABB IEC Low voltage motors, showed that 92% of surveyed businesses in Australia recognize the important role of electric motors in achieving sustainability targets. In this same survey, participants ranked a reduction in operating cost as a more important driver for investing in energy efficiency than lowering their organization’s emissions. This is because upgrading to newer, more efficient equipment provides benefits beyond just emission reduction. For example, ABB’s Synchronous Reluctance (SynRM) Motors, available in IE5 ultra-premium efficiency or IE6 hyper-premium efficiency, use no rare earth metals or magnets. Running quieter and with bearing temperatures reduced by up to 15°C and winding temperatures by up to 30°, SynRM motors have longer maintenance periods, superior reliability, and contribute to a better operational environment.

Looking ahead, upgrading to an IE5 SynRM motor also provides more visibility into Scope 3 emissions, as SynRM motors meet ABB’s circularity criteria and transparency on environmental impact is provided through Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).

By requiring companies to disclose their climate information, these new legal requirements are opening the door and facilitating more internal discussions on environmental impact and emission reduction. Whilst mandatory climate reporting is only required of large business entities this year, the progressive roll-out and Scope 3 emission reporting requirements mean that businesses of all sizes in Australia will be impacted by these new requirements. As businesses become more conscious of how sustainability should be integrated into their operations and finances, there is no better time to start investing in energy efficient solutions.

For more information, click here.

Image credit: iStock.com/denizunlusu

0 Comments