Puma scores 3 points higher than Nike on SINK's sustainability index.
Puma is more sustainable according to SINK's open sustainability index, scoring 42/100 vs Nike's 39/100 — a difference of 3 points.
Nike scores 39/100 on the SINK sustainability index (Below expectations). Nike has strong operational emissions controls and renewable energy deployment, but Scope 3 emissions—96% of its footprint—remain above 2015 baseline. Nature impact is poorly assessed, circularity metrics lack transparency, and the company's trade association memberships actively oppose climate policy, undercutting its direct commitments.
Puma scores 42/100 on the SINK sustainability index (Below expectations). PUMA reports comprehensive climate data with third-party verification and achieved a 29% absolute emissions reduction from 2017. However, its renewable energy claim relies entirely on unbundled RECs rather than additionality-based procurement, understating decarbonization integrity. Ongoing controversies over Palestinian settlement sponsorship and worker rights concerns materially undermine sustainability credibility.
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 — 500+ companies ranked.
View full leaderboard →