�ʹ�����app����

Our “Planet�� rating evaluates brands based on the environmental policies in their supply chains, from carbon emissions and wastewater to business models and product circularity. Here we rate Nike “It’s a Start��. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It uses some lower-impact materials including recycled materials.
• To minimise waste, it recycles some of its textile offcuts.
• It supports industry organisations that work to address the impacts of microplastics.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking actions to protect biodiversity in its supply chain.
• It’s set a target to eliminate hazardous chemicals by 2025 but claims it’s not on track.

Workers�� rights are central to our “People�� rating, which assess brands�� policies and practices on everything from child labour to living wages and gender equality. Here we rate Nike “Not Good Enough��. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It partly traces its supply chain including the final and some of the second production stages.
• The brand claims to audit some of its supply chain but doesn’t specify what percentage.
• It ensures some workers in the final production stage are paid living wages, though not in its entire supply chain.
• It’s taken insufficient steps to remediate its links to cotton sourced from Xinjiang, a region in China at risk of Uyghur forced labour.

Brands�� animal welfare policies and, where applicable, how well they trace their animal-derived products are the focus of our “Animals�� rating. Here we rate Nike “Not Good Enough��. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It’s published a general statement about minimising animal suffering but not a formal animal welfare policy.
• It appears to use leather, wool, shearling, and down.
• It doesn’t appear to use fur, angora, exotic animal hair, or exotic animal skin.
• It traces some animal-derived materials to the first production stage.

Based on all publicly available information we’ve reviewed, we rate Nike “Not Good Enough�� overall.