Tramontina
Evaluation Completed:
October 6, 2025
Evaluation Summary
Company Insights
Tramontina is a large company that makes a diverse range of products that include kitchen products, which are the focus of this evaluation. Despite having a fair amount of information labeled with the right words e.g. “sustainability” it was clear from our research that much of the content lacked substance. We see a wide variety of opportunities for this company to improve across the board and particularly with respect to their ingredient safety efforts. Many of this company’s kitchen products appear to contain PFAS chemicals and the company has recently worked to oppose state policy related to these toxic chemicals in California that would help protect consumers.
Ingredient Safety
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
None Identified
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
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
Improving ingredient safety substantiation
We’d like to have more information on their approach to ingredient safety to support a deeper assessment of their efforts
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
Leadership in producer responsibility
This brand appears to be setting an example in their industry through a dedicated product takeback or recovery program. Bravo!
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
Committing to a science-based climate goal
We would love to see this company build on their existing climate efforts by publicly adopting a greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal aligned with a science-based approach
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
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
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
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
Linking incentives & sustainability performance
We think this company should link incentives for key internal stakeholders to performance on sustainability goals and share those metrics publicly to help drive action on these issues
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
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.