Tower 28
Evaluation Completed:
October 22, 2025
Evaluation Summary
Company Insights
In the past we’ve seen Tower 28 lumped in with other “clean” marketed beauty brands, which is strange to us now that we’ve had a chance to do some research on the company. We can see how it may be confusing to the average consumer because the company does feature messaging on some of the issues that matter like safety and packaging (aka being “earth sensitive”). Unlike some of the other clean-marketed brands, this company does not appear to use any of the higher-quality certifications we trust. And the lack of information and substantiation on their approach to ingredient safety and sustainability means the company scored poorly on our evaluation criteria.
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
Taking comprehensive action to improve ingredient & material 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
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.
Hilde Likes
Emphasis on some relevant chemicals of concern
Opportunities for Improvement
Taking comprehensive action to improve ingredient & material safety
Verification of ingredient safety efforts
Environmental Impact
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
Using recycled raw materials
Using recycled materials (e.g. aluminum, glass, plastic) for products or packaging often means lower environmental impacts across the lifecycle than virgin raw materials
Opportunities for Improvement
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
Start addressing sources of climate pollution
We think this company needs to start taking credible actions to measure, reduce, and publicly report on their greenhouse gas emissions
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.
Hilde Likes
Using recycled raw materials
Opportunities for Improvement
Setting packaging sustainability targets
Start addressing sources of climate pollution
Worker Fairness
Foundational Gaps
Solid Baseline
Strong Performance
Hilde Likes
None Identified
Opportunities for Improvement
Start sourcing raw materials and products responsibly
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
Improving worker treatment & fairness
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
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.
Hilde Likes
None Identified
Opportunities for Improvement
Start sourcing raw materials and products responsibly
Improving worker treatment & fairness
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
Sharing accurate information about impacts on nature and people
We think this company should start providing information about their use of our shared resources and impact on people by publishing regular annual reports on sustainability or ESG topics for consumers or other stakeholders and maintain a publicly available archive of past reports
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.
Hilde Likes
None Identified
Opportunities for Improvement
Integrating sustainability into the mission
Sharing accurate information about impacts on nature and people