Wild Cosmetics sustainability score: 40/100
Limited independent evidence: only two independent sources cover this company. The score may change as more evidence appears.
Wild Cosmetics manufactures refillable aluminium deodorant cases with compostable refills, positioning itself as a plastic-free personal care brand. Founded in 2015, it has scaled rapidly into UK supermarkets (Tesco, Sainsbury's, Target) and international markets.
More about Wild Cosmetics
The company is B Corp certified but was acquired by Unilever in April 2025.
Founded 2015Head office London, UKStaff ~100-200Revenue ~£65MWebsite ↗
Wild has built a genuine circular model around refillable deodorant, but sustainability claims rest on weak foundations: baseline emissions data only, no reduction targets, heavy reliance on offsets, and unverified renewable energy claims. The April 2025 Unilever acquisition undermines eco positioning—selling to a company with a documented greenwashing record and 18/100 ethical rating.
Wild Cosmetics scores 40/100 (Below expectations) on SINK's independent climate assessment, scored from public data only. Scores are free. Companies can never pay for anything about their own score. Last verified May 2026.
That places Wild Cosmetics joint 409th of 934 companies scored, and 22nd of 45 in FMCG / Consumer Goods.
Limited evidence. This score rests on 7 sources, 57% of them published by the company itself. Every source cited here passed the same quality checks as any other score: all live, none from data aggregators. There is simply less of it.
What is Wild Cosmetics doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Resource Use & Waste and Water Impact (7/10, 6/10). Weakest on Emissions Trajectory and Targets & Commitments (2/10, 2/10).
Where Wild Cosmetics lost points
For each question that lost points, the evidence our public rubric looks for that we didn't find.
- Emissions from its own operations4/10No full Scope 1 and 2 figures worked out to the GHG Protocol.
- Emissions from its supply chain4/10Most of its supply-chain (Scope 3) emissions aren't measured.
- Whether its emissions are falling2/10No evidence its emissions are falling, not even from energy bills or mileage.
- How clean its energy is5/10Less than half its energy shown to be renewable, or no transition plan.
- Its effect on nature3/10No assessment of its effect on nature, and no basic environmental policy.
- How it uses materials and handles waste7/10No verified figures for reuse and recycling across the business.
- Its effect on water6/10No water stewardship programme or verified fall in water use.
- Its climate targets2/10No specific targets with dates.
- How openly it reports5/10No dedicated sustainability role, board oversight or public report.
- Its record on controversies6/10Points deducted for controversies or its business model. The finding is under question 10.
A score changes when the evidence does. We use new published evidence at the next rescore. Anyone can send us new evidence, free. How to send it.
How is Wild Cosmetics's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleWhat evidence is Wild Cosmetics's score based on?
7 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
57% of them were published by Wild Cosmetics itself; the rest come from independent sources.
Scored on 5 April 2026 under an earlier version of our method. We're re-checking it under the current method.
This company's public sustainability disclosure is limited. This score is based on the 7 verified sources cited below, rather than padded to a standard count.
Limited data coverage. This assessment is based on 7 sources, 57% of which are self-reported by the company. Scores may change as independent evidence becomes available.
If you believe a source has been misread or a newer version exists, submit a challenge.
Is this your company? Claim this profile (free)
Use this score in tenders
Send the link, or the one-page score sheet. It links back to this page and every source. Free.
Open the score sheet →Send new evidence, free
Scored low because little is published? Publish what you do and send us the link, free. If it holds up, your score changes, and the change is logged on your page.
How to send evidence →Put your score on your website, free
It shows the current score and links to this page, so it changes when the score does.
Track this score
Bidding for a public contract? Check if you need a Carbon Reduction Plan, free →
Want your own page like this?
Free, independent, every source shown. Send it to any buyer who asks about your sustainability.
How does Wild Cosmetics compare with other fmcg / consumer goods companies?
Where Wild Cosmetics sits among fmcg / consumer goods peers.
Among the 45 major fmcg / consumer goods brands we've scored, Wild Cosmetics sits 22nd of 45.
Who scores higher in FMCG / Consumer Goods?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Wild Cosmetics.
Colgate-Palmolive has validated net-zero targets and strong renewable energy procurement, but emissions are rising in absolute terms and supply chain reductions are severely lagging.
See the breakdown →Games Workshop reports Scope 1 and 2 emissions 69% below its FY2021/22 baseline, surpassing its 55%-by-2032 target.
See the breakdown →LEGO's emissions were 2.19 MtCO2e in 2025, 62% above its restated 2019 baseline, against a target of a 37% cut by 2032.
See the breakdown →Which companies moved this week, and why.
One email, every Sunday. Score changes, new research, the stories behind the numbers. Free.
We'll send one email to confirm. No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.
Checking a company?
Search free →Asked to prove you're sustainable?
Get your business scored, free →Been scored?
Find your page and claim it, free →Scores are free. Companies can never pay for anything about their own score.