Category rating — not an assessment of any specific brand
This rating covers a typical, mass-market
kitchen equipment product based on publicly available data.
It does not name or assess any specific manufacturer or product.
Individual products may perform better or worse.
Learn about verified ratings →
Category baseline
3.4 HIP
Below Standard
Category ceiling: 7.2 HIP
Regenerative Index
-5.0
Extractive
Category ceiling RI: -2.0
What this score means
The score shown is the current market baseline for kitchen equipment — what the HIP methodology can confirm from
publicly available specification data alone, before any manufacturer evidence is reviewed. The category ceiling
shown in small text below the score is what the methodology rewards when materials, supply chain, repairability,
and end-of-life pathways are fully evidenced. Manufacturers close that gap by applying for verified assessment.
Manufacturer? Verified assessment closes the gap.
The current market baseline for this category is 3.4 HIP.
The category ceiling — what the methodology rewards when materials, supply chain, repairability, and end-of-life
pathways are fully evidenced — is 7.2 HIP.
The first verified product in our programme demonstrated 6.9 HIP and earned the HIP Mark.
If your product can evidence the methodology dimensions, verified assessment gives it the score it has earned.
Apply for verified assessment
Score Breakdown
Material Scarcity Index
20% weight
5.0
The product relies on abundant materials including soda-lime glass, stainless steel, silicone, and polypropylene, with no dominant EU Critical Raw Materials present. The score is constrained by the 20% recycled content, which falls below the 40% threshold for low scarcity, and the lack of submitted data regarding extraction country concentration.
Supply Chain Risk
18% weight
3.5
The product is assembled in China, a primary source for glass and silica with moderate geopolitical concentration risk. Due to the absence of submitted due diligence standards or alternative supplier documentation, the assessment defaults to a conservative baseline for standard appliances without third-party verification. The single supplier structure and lack of audited governance frameworks prevent a higher rating.
Recyclability & Circularity
18% weight
2.0
The product is classified as glass food storage but is assumed to be glued with no take-back scheme, preventing practical material separation. Only 20% of the weight is estimated to enter recycling streams, with the remainder likely landfilled due to the lack of disassembly and infrastructure. This performance falls below the baseline for standard small appliances and aligns with non-recyclable sealed designs.
Repairability
13% weight
1.0
The product is assumed to be glued shut with no spare parts available and no public service manual, placing it in the unrepairable category typical of sealed consumer goods. The lack of fastener data and parts commitment prevents any independent repair or component replacement.
Social & Environmental Impact
8% weight
3.5
The product is manufactured in China, a jurisdiction with elevated labour risk profiles, and no third-party audit evidence or environmental certifications were submitted. The score reflects the pre-verification baseline for mass-market consumer goods produced in Asia without independent verification of social or environmental management systems.
Product Longevity
8% weight
8.0
The product demonstrates exceptional longevity with a stated design life of 20 years, which exceeds the 10-year threshold for the highest tier. Although the 2-year warranty is standard and no IP rating or modular design data is provided, the explicit 20-year design commitment drives the score into the above-average range.
Regenerative Index
15% weight · scale −10 to +10
-5.0
The product scores in the Extractive band (-5 to -1) due to 20% recycled content, which provides a partial mitigation against the Depleting floor. It does not qualify for the Depleting minimum of -7 because the recycled content threshold is met, though the absence of a take-back scheme and lack of regenerative certifications prevent a higher score.
MSI 20% · SCR 18% · RC 18% · R 13% · SEI 8% · PL 8% · RI 15% = 100%
About the HIP Methodology ▸
Generic ratings are intentionally conservative. They represent only what the HIP methodology can confirm from
publicly available specification data, before any manufacturer-supplied evidence is reviewed. Most categories sit
in the 2–4 range at the pre-verification baseline. This is the methodology working as designed: it makes the gap
between current market practice and demonstrable resilience legible to consumers, manufacturers, and procurement
buyers. Verified assessment is the path across that gap, and the HIP Mark is the proof of crossing it.
Read the full methodology →
Consumer Summary
This glass food storage set has an overall HIP Score of 3.4 out of 10, which aligns with the current market baseline for this category. Its Regenerative Index is -5.0, indicating that while it includes some recycled materials, it is designed in a way that limits its ability to be reused or recycled at the end of its life. The product offers a long design life of 20 years, but its construction makes it difficult to repair or take apart for recycling.
What This Means For You
When shopping for kitchen storage, look for items that are designed to be easily disassembled so you can repair them or recycle the materials later. Avoid products that are glued together or lack clear instructions, as these features often prevent the item from being reused or recovered. Choosing durable goods that can be fixed or separated at the end of their life helps support a more sustainable cycle for your kitchen equipment.
Data Transparency
This is a category rating based on publicly available data. The following data fields were not submitted by a manufacturer and have been estimated conservatively using open reference data and LLM training knowledge:
material_percentagescountry_of_primary_extractionprimary_sourcing_countriestier1_supplier_countdue_diligence_standardalternative_supplier_existsdisassembly_typerecyclable_streams_pctrecycling_label_compliantdesign_for_disassemblyfastener_typespare_parts_availablespare_parts_years_committedservice_manual_publicifixit_scoreecodesign_in_scopemanufacturing_countriesenvironmental_certificationsthird_party_certificationrba_audit_completedmodern_slavery_statementilo_compliance_claimedip_ratingmodular_designsoftware_support_yearsprimary_material_originregenerative_certificationsclosed_loop_programmeend_of_life_programmematerial_origin_certifiedregenerative_practicesthird_party_certification
A verified rating uses manufacturer-submitted data and produces a more accurate, product-specific score.
Material Watch Points
- No due-diligence programme documented
- Single primary supplier with no alternative
- Assembly in China without material origin verification
About This Rating
Produced under Resourcehip Methodology v1.3 (CC BY-NC 4.0). Assessed: 2026-04-29. Next scheduled review: 2027-04-29.
Dispute this rating · Our methodology · All ratings
Data Sources
This rating draws on the following public sources:
USGS Mineral Resources Program (public domain) · EU Critical Raw Materials List 2023 (CC BY 4.0) · World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators (CC BY 4.0) · LLM training knowledge (for assumed fields — no manufacturer submission)
All sources are public domain or published under open data licences.
Full source list →
About this rating:
HIP scores are based on publicly available data at the assessment date.
They are estimates of material resilience — not guarantees of product performance, safety, or future supply conditions.
Resourcehip accepts no liability for decisions made in reliance on these ratings.
Scope:
This is a category rating for Glass Food Storage and does not assess any specific brand or manufacturer.
Individual products may perform better or worse than this baseline.
Produced under Resourcehip Scoring Methodology 1.3.
AI disclosure:
This rating was produced using an AI scoring pipeline (local, no cloud — no data shared externally) and reviewed and approved by a human assessor before publication.
Scoring model: qwen3.5:35b.
The model's training data influences the findings — see the methodology for caveats.
AI transparency notice →
Not financial or investment advice.
Ratings are for consumer information only.
Dispute this rating · Our methodology · All ratings
Assessed: 2026-04-29 · Next review: 2027-04-29 · Methodology 1.3
