Krups
Evaluation Completed:
August 27, 2025
Adults
Evaluation Summary
Company Insights
Krups is owned by the company Groupe SEB. 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.
Groupe SEB owns a variety of kitchen brands sold in both the U.S. and internationally. We like that a number of the brands owned by the company offer cookware made with materials like stainless steel and cast iron that tend to be safer options for these kinds of products. That said, the company’s unwillingness to phase out fluorinated compounds (e.g. PTFE) from their non-stick products was a major ingredient safety red flag for us. Their poor performance on the ingredient safety portion of our evaluation is the primary reason the company doesn’t get a better overall rating. There were a variety of other elements of their sustainability and accountability efforts that score well for our criteria. We see indicators that the company is making progress on some topics like living wages in their supply chain. If you do decide to purchase products from one of the brands owned by this company like All-Clad, go with the stainless steel options.
Ingredient Safety
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
Choosing inherently safer raw materials
This company chooses to make some products out of raw materials (e.g. glass, steel, iron, wood) that tend to be inherently safer when they are not coated or treated with other chemicals
Opportunities for Improvement
Benchmarking ingredient safety practices
We would like to see this company participate in the Chemical Footprint Project or similar initiative to help benchmark their policies and practices against other companies publicly share their results
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
Nature & biodiversity protection
This company appears to have a holistic approach to identifying and attempting to manage impacts to ecosystems that provide important raw materials for their products
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
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
This company needs to rapidly reduce GHG emissions to achieve the reductions necessary to protect people & the planet and achieve their goals
Verification of environmental impact reduction efforts
This company should start using or expand their use of high-quality certifications related to strengthen their claims related to environmental impact reduction
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
Respecting worker’s right to organize
This company appears to have helpful policies and practices in place when it comes to organized labor and collective bargaining for employees
Solid responsible sourcing efforts
This company appears to identify the right priorities and have a credible approach to improving the sustainability of their supply chain.
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
Providing paid maternity leave
We would like to see this company adopt a paid maternity leave policy for their employees that goes beyond regulatory 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
Linking incentives & sustainability performance
This company links incentives for key internal stakeholders to performance on sustainability goals and objectives to help drive action
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.