Is Nike ethical?
We look at several ethical issues including workers’ rights, climate change, tax conduct and sustainable material sourcing.
Below we outline some of these issues. To see the full detailed stories, and Nike's overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe.
Nike and workers' rights
While the company has a relatively strong code of conduct on workers’ rights, Nike has received multiple criticisms in recent years over abuses in its supply chain.
In March 2026, the non-profit investigative newsroom ProPublica accused Nike of shifting production to regions of Indonesia with lower minimum wage costs. Nike’s Indonesian suppliers allegedly cut around 36,000 jobs between 2015 and last year in areas where minimum wages are near a living wage, while adding nearly 112,000 jobs in Central and West Java, where wages remain well below a living wage.
In December 2022, for example, The Guardian reported that more than 400,000 garment workers in Karnataka, India, had been receiving wages below the legal minimum at more than 1,000 factories since April 2020 - including those working in Nike’s supply chain. The following month, corporate ethics watchdog the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre criticised multiple companies for failing to adequately respond to the abuses. Nike stated, "We are monitoring the situation in Karnataka. Nike expects all suppliers to comply with local legal requirements and the Nike Code of Conduct.”
The company has also been criticised by the Workers’ Rights Consortium for failing to adequately support Cambodian factory workers in its supply chain, who were made redundant during Covid-19. A total of 1,284 workers lost their jobs at the Violet Apparel factory in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, when it shut in June 2020. According to the advocacy group, the mostly female workforce was owed an estimated US$1.4 million in compensation as the factory failed to give them the legally required notice.
Nike pointed to a decision by Cambodia’s Arbitration Council, the country’s labour dispute settlement body, which denied damages to the workers. It stated that it did not source from the supplier – although the Workers’ Right Consortium said the work had been subcontracted by one of Nike’s suppliers.
Nike poor on climate responsibility
Nike performs poorly in Ethical Consumer’s climate category.
The company reports on emissions throughout its supply chain, but has not set comprehensive reduction targets in line with international climate goals. It had not set a Net Zero target for 2050, only a near term target of 2030.
To reduce these it stated it was increasing recycled material use (including some recycled cotton), engaging suppliers to increase renewable energy use, alongside having reduced its use of air freight by nearly 80% since 2020.
While 46% of its polyester is recycled, just 12% of its cotton is organic.
In December 2025, the UK's advertising watchdog challenged Nike over the use of the word "sustainable" in paid-for Google ads which were not backed up by evidence of their sustainability. Nike said its advert, promoting tennis polo shirts with the tagline "serve and ace with Nike… sustainable materials", was framed "in general terms" and highlighted the wider sustainability of its products.
The trainer giant said its claim about "sustainable materials" was intended to highlight that other products available on its site incorporated recycled materials.
Nike's record on tax, lobbying and pay
In 2026, Nike’s highest paid Executive Officer received an astonishing $36,340,8765 – around £27 million.
The company has also been criticised for tax avoidance and scores very badly in Ethical Consumer’s tax conduct rating. A report by the Institute on Taxation And Economic Policy dated April 2021 said that Nike paid no federal income tax in 2020 in the United States on almost $2.9 billion income. The report named 54 other large companies who had also paid no tax.
An article in the Guardian dated April 2023 also reported on an investigation by People2.0, a workforce services specialist, which found that Nike may have been incorrectly classifying workers as freelancers and could therefore be liable for potentially huge fines from tax authorities. The company did not reply to the Guardian’s request for comment.
Nike is also involved in lobbying. Nike was listed as a member of the US Council for International Business (USCIB), American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM) and the Business Roundtable – all considered to be corporate lobby groups promoting free trade at the expense of the environment, animal welfare, human rights or health protection.
Israel-Palestine rating
Nike owns a subsidiary in Israel, Nike Israel Ltd, whose operations would result in the flow of tax contributions to the Israeli government. It also dropped one of its ambassadors over her posts about the war in Gaza and genocide. In a statement given to The Daily Mail Australia, Nike said it "did not does not stand for any form of discrimination, including antisemitism."
Nike's use of animal products
Nike scores poorly for use of animal products such as leather without the relevant animal welfare policies. Its leather trainers were considered high risk for factory farming or particularly poor animal welfare. Its leather trainers were not covered by a leather policy.
The text above was written October 2026, and most research was conducted in September 2026.