Shout
Evaluation Completed:
March 6, 2025
Adults
Kitchen
Bedroom
Evaluation Summary
Company Insights
Shout is owned by the company SC Johnson. 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.
SC Johnson owns many household brands across a number of product categories. We were pleasantly surprised by what we found during our research and evaluation. The company has some solid safety & sustainability bona fides and a decent foundation to build on in a few specific areas of impact. We look forward to seeing this company improve their accountability and tackle more advanced issues.
Ingredient Safety
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
Impressive commitment to ingredient transparency
This company discloses nearly all of the ingredients, including fragrance components, for products across multiple brands and categories
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
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
Focusing on packaging sustainability
The environmental impact of packaging from some kinds of products is significant but challenging to address and we value that this company is using circular design strategies to help address this issue
Opportunities for Improvement
Bolder action on climate impacts
We think this company should start measuring and reducing Scope 3 emissions along with publishing a decarbonization transition plan
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
Good focus on people issues
This company appears to have a holistic approach to treating people well including a credible responsible sourcing process to help protect human rights for workers in their supply chain
Opportunities for Improvement
None Identified
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
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.