Gain
Evaluation Completed:
July 7, 2025
Adults
Evaluation Summary
Company Insights
Gain is owned by the company Proctor & Gamble. Hilde evaluates parent companies rather than individual brands. You can read more about why we think this approach is more helpful for consumers on our blog.
Chances are you have a few products made by Proctor & Gamble in your home right now. Like the other consumer product giants, they own lots of them. And you probably won’t be surprised to hear that we think they need to adopt a more precautionary approach to ingredient safety. But we were encouraged to see some decent sustainability efforts that could serve as the basis for real transformation should the company invest more resources.
Ingredient Safety
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
Providing full ingredient disclosure
Telling people what is in your products is a basic (but sometimes missing) step towards safer products
Opportunities for Improvement
Transitioning to a more protective ingredient safety approach
This company has framework for evaluating ingredient safety but we would like to see them move from a risk-based approach to a more precautionary one based on hazard
Verification of ingredient safety efforts
We think this company should start using or expand the use of high-quality certifications that help verify their claims related to ingredient safety
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
Efforts to improve raw materials sourcing & supply chain
This company appears to effectively identify raw materials that represent a higher risk for impacts to biodiversity like deforestation and take action to address them in their supply chain
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
Using circular design thinking
We appreciate that this company appears to be integrating more circular approaches to designing and making products and packaging to help reduce environmental impacts
Opportunities for Improvement
Focusing on reducing Scope 3 emissions
We would like to see a more aggressive and holistic approach to reducing the company’s supply chain-related emissions because they are often a significant majority of a company’s annual greenhouse gas emissions
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
Paid maternity leave
We appreciate that this company offers this benefit for working mothers in ways that appear to go beyond statutory requirements
More supply chain transparency
This company provides some useful information about where they source raw materials and where their products are manufactured
Opportunities for Improvement
Committing to living wages
This company has the policies and resources in place to make a formal commitment to fair or living wages for their employees and the people in their supply chain
Verification of benefits for people efforts
This company should start using or expand their use of high-quality certifications related to strengthen their claims related to creating benefits for people
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
Adopting a context-based approach to sustainability
We think this company is ready to take a leadership position by measuring and managing performance against planetary boundaries and thresholds to assess true operational sustainability
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.