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 cut Scope 1&2 emissions 69–73% since 2015 but Scope 3—96% of its footprint—only recently began falling after years above baseline. Supply chain energy transition remains early-stage, nature impact assessment is absent, and Nike's membership in anti-climate trade associations directly contradicts its climate commitments. Recent greenwashing ruling adds credibility damage.
Puma scores 42/100 on the SINK sustainability index (Below expectations). PUMA reports comprehensive climate data with third-party verification and achieved early SBT targets, but relies heavily on unbundled renewable energy credits without additionality. Significant ongoing controversies over Palestinian settlement sponsorship, greenwashing allegations, and worker rights issues substantially weaken its sustainability credibility despite operational emissions reductions.
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 →