Drybar
Evaluation Completed:
March 26, 2026
Evaluation Summary
Company Insights
Drybar is owned by the company Helen of Troy. Hilde evaluates parent companies rather than individual brands. Learn more. Our research on Helen of Troy shows that the company is talking about some of the right issues and topics. But their lack of data and supporting information is concerning. For example, the company mentions biodiversity protection in their guiding principles. But it does not appear to provide any information about company policies or initiatives on the topic and lists it as “not applicable” in their reporting. Similarly, the company identifies chemical management and product safety for consumers as priorities. But it does not include these topics in their guiding principles. The company discusses setting targets to measure the effectiveness of their environmental efforts. But it does not appear to provide relevant data related to goals or metrics on many of the topics they claim to prioritize, with the exception of climate. Our impression is that the company’s approach to ingredient safety in particular is largely focused on complying with their legal obligations and relevant regulations. It would be great to see the company go beyond this bare minimum, which some of their competitors are doing in a number of ways.
Ingredient Safety
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
None Identified
Opportunities for Improvement
Additional disclosure needed on ingredient safety
We would appreciate more information from this company including metrics ad data on their ingredient safety efforts to enhance our evaluation of their policies, practices, and impacts
Crafting a comprehensive chemicals policy
We think this company should create and publicly share a comprehensive and precautionary chemicals policy, ingredient safety standard, or similar
Utilizing a restricted substances list
We think this company should develop and disclose a comprehensive list of the ingredients or chemicals that they restrict from their products and supply chain as well as the rationale behind their list
Category Definition
Our ingredient safety evaluation criteria are designed to help us determine how a company measures, manages, and discloses, the use of chemicals of concern that may be present in raw materials, ingredients, manufacturing processes, and finished products.
Foundational Gaps
The company does not meet sufficient baseline criteria for this category and has many opportunities for improvement.
Solid Baseline
The company meets most of our basic criteria and sometimes demonstrates a deeper commitment than other companies on issues in this category.
Strong Performance:
The company appears to be a top performer in this evaluation category and exhibits leadership on one or more of the issues we evaluate.
Environmental Impact
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
Science-based climate protection goal
We’re happy to see that this company has publicly committed to reducing their carbon footprint in ways that are aligned with the latest science
Opportunities for Improvement
Improving producer responsibility
Given the hard to recycle nature of many kinds of the products this company makes and sells we would like to see this company provide a manufacturer takeback or recovery program beyond what is required by state or local laws
Launching efforts to protect biodiversity & ecosystems
We would like to see this company take steps to understand and mitigate the impacts their operations, supply chain, or products have on biodiversity, nature, and ecosystems and communicate about them publicly
Setting a circularity goal and metrics
We would like to see this company elevate their product or packaging circularity efforts by setting a credible goal for their circularity efforts and measuring and reporting on their progress over time
Category Definition
Our environmental impact reduction evaluation criteria are designed to help us determine how a company measures, manages, and discloses information about the impacts that their operations, products, and supply chain may have on our air, land, water, and ecosystems.
Foundational Gaps
The company does not meet sufficient baseline criteria for this category and has many opportunities for improvement.
Solid Baseline
The company meets most of our basic criteria and sometimes demonstrates a deeper commitment than other companies on issues in this category.
Strong Performance:
The company appears to be a top performer in this evaluation category and exhibits leadership on one or more of the issues we evaluate.
Worker Fairness
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
Informed code of conduct
This company has a supplier code of conduct that is based on international guidance from credible sources
Opportunities for Improvement
Additional disclosure needed on worker fairness efforts
We would appreciate more information from this company including metrics and data on their worker fairness efforts to enhance our evaluation of their policies, practices, and impacts
Committing to living wages
This company should make a public commitment to providing living wages for their employees and the people in their supply chain that goes beyond the minimums required by law
Providing paid parental leave
We would like to see this company adopt a paid parental leave policy for their employees that goes beyond minimum legal requirements and share it publicly
Category Definition
Our worker fairness evaluation criteria are designed to help us determine how a company measures, manages, and discloses information about the way they treat their employees, workers in their supply chain, and other stakeholders.
Foundational Gaps
The company does not meet sufficient baseline criteria for this category and has many opportunities for improvement.
Solid Baseline
The company meets most of our basic criteria and sometimes demonstrates a deeper commitment than other companies on issues in this category.
Strong Performance:
The company appears to be a top performer in this evaluation category and exhibits leadership on one or more of the issues we evaluate.
Accountability
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
Public disclosure and reporting
This company provides helpful disclosure on their efforts through annual reporting on sustainability or ESG topics for consumers or other stakeholders
Opportunities for Improvement
Linking incentives & sustainability performance
We think this company should link incentives for key internal stakeholders to performance on sustainability goals and share those metrics publicly to help drive action on these issues
Securing sustainability data & reporting assurance
We think this company should strengthen the credibility of the data and information they report related to their sustainability performance by having it audited and assured by an independent external organization
Category Defition
Our corporate accountability evaluation criteria are designed to help us determine how a company integrates sustainability across their organization to help govern decision making and engage with external stakeholders in socially responsible ways.
Foundational Gaps
The company does not meet sufficient baseline criteria for this category and has many opportunities for improvement.
Solid Baseline
The company meets most of our basic criteria and sometimes demonstrates a deeper commitment than other companies on issues in this category.
Strong Performance:
The company appears to be a top performer in this evaluation category and exhibits leadership on one or more of the issues we evaluate.