Nike is a culture-shaping player and a trendsetter. Wherever the brand moves, people – and, naturally, other brands – tend to follow. So when Nike announced it wouldn’t issue a sustainability report this year for the first time in six years, it felt like a blow to anyone hoping the sporting goods industry would finally put its money where its mouth is on corporate responsibility.
But it’s not just that Nike, for the first time, seems reluctant to publicly discuss its sustainability efforts – or perhaps found too little to talk about. The decision to withhold the report comes at a pivotal time, when a key pillar of CSR is under particular threat: DEI – company policies designed to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion.
In January, The New York Times reported that US President Trump’s new executive order targeting DEI programs created “fear and confusion” among corporate leaders. Since returning to the office, he has signed additional orders rolling back DEI efforts across federal agencies and urging scrutiny of such programs at publicly traded corporations, nonprofits, and foundations.
Since the order took effect, many US companies have quietly reduced or reframed their DEI commitments. That raises an obvious question: how is the sporting goods industry responding? For a sector that markets itself in major parts through empowerment, inclusion, and the celebration of diverse athletes, this political climate presents both a branding and an ethical dilemma.
To find out, we looked at company websites, ESG reports, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) indices, and – where available – 10-K filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Nike
First things first: a sustainability report is primarily about environmental impact – a company’s carbon footprint and progress toward climate goals. Yet Nike’s reports have always gone further, touching on labor conditions, gender and racial representation, and supply-chain transparency. In other words, sustainability at Nike has never been just about emissions; it has also been about equity – both environmental and social.
The company’s decision to forgo its report for the first time since 2019 therefore feels significant. It’s not only a communications gap but a symbolic silence from a brand that has long prided itself on progressive values – recall former CEO John Donahoe’s LinkedIn post describing the report as “a testament to our belief in the transformative power of sport.”
Nike has, after all, built much of its modern identity around advocacy – from its numerous equality campaigns to its partnerships with athletes who challenge social norms. To suddenly pause that conversation, in a year when diversity and inclusion have become politically charged, raises questions the company has not yet answered publicly.
According to Insurance Journal, Nike said in an email that it still plans to share the work it’s doing to create a more inclusive and sustainable world for athletes “in other formats,” and that its commitment to diversity goals for 2025 has not changed. Even so, the absence of a formal report – while not a legal requirement – represents a setback, however temporary, for corporate transparency.
In this year’s SEC filing, the word “diversity” appears only twice – down sharply from last year’s more detailed section on DEI. That, together with the September 2025 exit of the Chief Sustainability Officer after earlier cuts to ESG teams, points to a deliberate pullback in messaging.
Nike still earns a perfect 100 on the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index (CEI), signaling that its internal LGBTQ+ policies remain robust. Yet the CEI measures policy compliance, not necessarily lived inclusivity. Just Capital continues to rank Nike among industry leaders for community and workforce engagement – but the brand’s choice to speak less about it publicly feels at odds with its history of advocacy.
Dick’s Sporting Goods
While Nike still references DEI prominently on its website (including a “representation by the numbers”), Dick’s Sporting Goods told shareholders during its Annual Meeting in June 2025 that it had removed references to DEI from its website and emphasized it uses no quotas and remains an Equal Opportunity employer. While it refrained from using the term DEI, it did underline that it wants to “level the playing field for all, [and ] treat others with dignity and respect.“ In its 2025 10-K, the largest sporting goods retailer in the United States talks about “Inclusion” and culture, but the acronym “DEI” doesn’t appear – consistent with the re-framing trend.
Adidas
If Nike’s silence raised eyebrows, Adidas’ response has been quieter in a different way. The company no longer uses “DEI” on its website, instead grouping related efforts under “Inclusion & Culture.” What was once a DEI agenda is now part of a friendlier, less politicized narrative about belonging.
Adidas reaffirmed its gender-equality goal – 50% women in leadership by 2033 – and detailed progress in its 2024 Annual Report, which lists inclusion as a “material topic.” Programs such as “Inclusion for Transformation” workshops and a DEI Council remain active. Still, the company has tempered its social activism: it quietly scaled back Pride Toronto 2025 sponsorship (along with other companies), focusing instead on “creating an equal playing field for all.”
Adidas maintains a perfect 100 on the HRC CEI, and European reporting standards (ESRS) ensure continued disclosure of workforce diversity and pay data. Yet internal critics told Fortune in 2024 that representation gaps persist, especially for Black professionals in leadership – a reminder that policy frameworks don’t always translate to lived experience.
Under Armour
Under Armour, too, has rebranded its “DEI” website as “Culture.” The page still declares that “advancing and celebrating diversity, equity and inclusion enhance our team culture and drive innovation,” yet the company has not updated its workforce representation data since 2022.
While it retains nine employee resource groups and a human-rights due-diligence model aligned with UN principles, the brand’s communications have grown quieter. Under Armour scored 85 on the 2025 HRC CEI, missing points for limited LGBTQ+ programming and public engagement. In a year marked by layoffs and restructuring, it’s unclear how much internal bandwidth remains for broader DEI initiatives.
Patagonia
Patagonia stands apart in the current climate. The privately held outdoor brand continues to frame social justice and inclusion as inseparable from sustainability. Its most recent Benefit Corporation (B-Corp) report details workforce diversity, supplier training, and living-wage coverage – topics many peers have begun to sidestep.
Patagonia earned a 70 on the 2025 HRC CEI – lower than Nike or Adidas – but continues to publish detailed pay-equity and demographic data. The company remains accredited by the Fair Labor Association and actively discloses progress toward equitable labor practices across its supply chain. While some corporations retreat from “activist” branding, Patagonia’s stance on inclusion and climate justice has, if anything, become more explicit – reinforcing its identity as an outlier willing to mix values with commerce (the Badger Herald from the University of Wisconsin highlights that Patagonia “continues its unwavering stance on social and environmental justice”. On its website, the brand features interviews with fired public lands employees before they were reinstated – not necessarily a DEI initiative but it shows you were the wind blows).
Saysh
Saysh, founded by Olympian Allyson Felix after her public split with Nike over maternity protections, represents the opposite end of the spectrum: a small, purpose-built brand grounded in DEI principles.
Its entire business model centers on women-first design – shoes made on women’s lasts, with campaigns celebrating motherhood and body diversity. Its signature policy, the “Maternity Returns Program,” allows customers to exchange shoes if their size changes during pregnancy – a symbolic yet powerful gesture of inclusion.
Saysh’s marketing flips the traditional empowerment narrative by treating inclusivity not as CSR but as core identity. While the company is too small for HRC scoring or SEC reporting, it embodies what larger corporations now hesitate to say outright: that equity can be a brand’s differentiator rather than a reputational risk.
A broader pattern
What’s happening in the sporting goods industry mirrors a broader corporate pattern. As Reuters recently reported, major U.S. retailers like Target and Amazon have publicly dialed back DEI initiatives while quietly maintaining internal programs and employee networks. The same duality appears here: Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour still uphold inclusion frameworks but have softened their language, while Patagonia and Saysh keep DEI front and center.
Across the sector, the message is clear – policies remain (at least in parts), but the rhetoric has changed. Whether this marks a strategic pause or the start of a deeper retreat from corporate equity discourse remains to be seen.
