Saatva
Evaluation Completed:
November 4, 2025
Evaluation Summary
Company Insights
We’re concerned about the validity of many of the ingredient safety and sustainability claims made by this company. During our research, we noted several inconsistencies that were major red flags. For example, we found two instances where the company appears to claim their products have certifications (e.g.Cradle to Cradle, Global Organic Textile Standard). A search of the public databases maintained by the certifying organizations, in this case the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute and Global Standard gGmbH did not confirm those certification claims. This is standard practice for Hilde. We attempt to verify with the certifying body itself when a company claims that they and/or their products have received a high-quality certification. Our rating reflects numerous other gaps in their approaches to ingredient safety and sustainability.
Ingredient Safety
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
Emphasis on some relevant chemicals of concern
This brand recognizes that certain groups of chemicals should be restricted from the products they make or sell
Opportunities for Improvement
Adopting a comprehensive approach to ingredient safety
We would like to see this brand adopt a precautionary safer chemicals policy, use a publicly available Restricted Substances List, address sources of contaminants, and use laboratory testing to ensure purity and assess compliance
Tackling advanced ingredient safety issues
We would like to see this company build on their solid safety baseline by including laboratory testing and a process for addressing contaminants
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
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 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
Setting packaging sustainability targets
We think this company should start to set time-bound goals for reducing the environmental impacts of their packaging and publicly report on their progress towards them
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
None Identified
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
Filling gaps on people impacts
We believe this company should put credible efforts in place to ensure that their employees are treated fairly, that human rights are protected for people in their supply chain, raw materials are sourced responsibly, and publicly share info about their work
Better claims substantiation for people benefits
More transparency by the company is needed related to their claims for people benefits topics because we were unable to find sufficient publicly available substantiation for some criteria
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
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
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
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.