Made In
Evaluation Completed:
February 21, 2026
Kitchen
Evaluation Summary
Company Insights
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
Use of analytical testing
Helping ensure that raw materials, ingredients, or finished products are in compliance with internal standards or other requirements is a smart step
Opportunities for Improvement
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
Disclosing chemicals and ingredients
We feel strongly that this company should provide consumers with greater transparency about the chemicals and ingredients present in their products and packaging
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
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
None Identified
Opportunities for Improvement
Additional disclosure needed on environmental efforts
We would appreciate more information from this company on their environmental impact reduction efforts to enhance our evaluation of their policies, practices, and impacts
Adopting strategies to increase circularity
We see a big opportunity for this company to reduce the environmental impact of their products and packaging by assessing the lifecycle and make more informed decisions about the ingredients and materials they use
Launching climate protection efforts
We would like to see this company take credible actions to measure, reduce, and report on their greenhouse gas emissions
Launching efforts to protect biodiversity & ecosyse
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
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
Employee equity or profit sharing
This company appears to share financial success with their employees beyond their salaries through equity, stock options, or profit sharing
Opportunities for Improvement
Crafting a strong Supplier Code of Conduct
We think this company should craft or revise their existing code of conduct to align with recognized international standards
Increasing supply chain transparency
We believe this company could be providing better transparency about where they source raw materials and where their products are manufactured
Launching a responsible sourcing program
We would like this company to launch a responsible sourcing program that includes an internal policy, defines higher-risk raw materials, and their process for mitigating impacts to people & the planet
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
None Identified
Opportunities for Improvement
Integrating sustainability into the mission
This company could boost their credibility and accelerate meaningful action on sustainability issues by making it an explicit part of their mission, purpose, or values
Providing public disclosure and reporting
We think this company should start publishing regular annual reports on sustainability or ESG topics for consumers or other stakeholders and maintain a publicly available archive of past reports
Establishing good governance practices
We think this company should integrate sustainability into the business model and decision making while enabling accountability mechanisms at the executive and board level
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.