How we score products.
A single, published 0–100 formula built from five weighted pillars. Every rank on the site traces back to inputs on this page — nothing is hidden, nothing is paid.
The score at a glance
Weightings sum to 100%. Every product is scored against the same pillars, in every category.
1. Third-party certifications
35%2. Ingredient & material safety
20%3. Supply-chain transparency
15%4. Packaging sustainability
15%5. Brand-level ethics
15%Inside each pillar
1. Third-party certifications
35%Independently audited marks (B Corp, Leaping Bunny, USDA Organic, Fair Trade, FSC, GOTS, Cradle to Cradle, Non-GMO Project, EWG Verified, Rainforest Alliance). Self-declared logos and 'made with' claims carry no weight.
2. Ingredient & material safety
20%Cross-referenced against EWG Skin Deep for personal care, USDA-permitted lists for food, GOTS for textiles, and published material datasheets. Hazardous, restricted, or undisclosed inputs reduce the score.
3. Supply-chain transparency
15%Does the brand publish its factory list, supplier list, or audit results? Are origin countries disclosed for key inputs? Opaque supply chains lose points regardless of certifications.
4. Packaging sustainability
15%Recyclability, recycled content, refill systems, plastic minimization, and end-of-life takeback programs.
5. Brand-level ethics
15%Public commitments, lawsuits, greenwashing penalties, parent-company conflicts, animal-testing posture in regulated markets, and labor practices.
What disqualifies a product
Any one of these overrides a strong pillar score and removes the product from ranked lists:
- Confirmed animal testing in any unregulated market.
- Use of certification marks the brand is not actually certified to hold.
- Restricted-substance violations confirmed by a regulator.
- Active greenwashing rulings from the FTC, ASA (UK), CMA, or equivalent.
- Undisclosed parent-company conflicts (e.g. tobacco, oil-major ownership) without a firewall.
Brand disclosure impact
Brands that publish factory lists, supplier audits, and ingredient origins gain up to +12 points on the transparency and brand-ethics pillars combined. Opaque brands cannot exceed 70/100 no matter their certifications.
Score refresh cadence
Certifications are re-checked on every product-page render. Brand ethics inputs are reviewed quarterly and immediately after any recall, regulator action, or public controversy.
Limitations & honest caveats
No score captures everything. We rely on public information; brands that disclose less may score lower than they "deserve" simply because we can't verify their claims. The score is a starting point, not a verdict — every product page links to the underlying certifications and notes so you can dig in.
Why the score is weighted the way it is
Certifications carry the largest weight because they are the only inputs that come with an external auditor, a published standard and a revocation process. A brand can rewrite its sustainability page overnight; it cannot quietly rewrite a Leaping Bunny listing or a GOTS scope certificate.
Ingredient and material safety comes next because it is objective and comparable: a full INCI list or fibre composition can be checked against hazard databases without trusting anyone's narrative. Packaging and brand-level ethics carry smaller weights, since both rely more heavily on self-reported information.
The weighting is intentionally conservative about the things marketing is best at. Carbon-neutral claims, vague sourcing language and awards that brands nominate themselves for contribute nothing. A product loses nothing for silence, but it gains nothing either.
How scores change over time
Scores are not static. A lapsed certificate, a new audit, a recall notice or a newly published supplier list all move the number. Because certification status is re-checked when a page refreshes, a product can drop without any editorial decision being taken — which is the intended behaviour.
When a score moves by more than a few points, the underlying reason appears in the product's certification and notes sections, so a reader can see whether the change reflects new evidence or the loss of old evidence.
Score pillars and typical evidence
| Pillar | Weight | Evidence that raises it | Evidence that lowers it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Third-party certifications | 35% | Active listing in a public register with a valid scope | Expired, withdrawn or scope-limited certificates |
| Ingredients & materials | 20% | Full disclosure, no high-hazard inputs, recycled or organic content | Undisclosed fragrance, restricted substances, virgin synthetics only |
| Supply-chain transparency | 15% | Named suppliers or factories, published audit summaries | No sourcing information beyond a country name |
| Packaging | 15% | Refillable, mono-material, certified compostable or high recycled content | Mixed-material plastic, excessive secondary packaging |
| Brand ethics | 15% | Living-wage commitments, published policies, clean watchdog record | Open controversies, greenwashing rulings, unresolved recalls |
Reading a score critically
- Check which pillar carried itA score built purely on packaging is weaker than one built on audits.
- Look for scope limitsCertificates often cover one fibre, facility or ingredient — not the whole item.
- Note the dateRecently re-checked certifications are worth more than old screenshots.
- Treat gaps as gapsMissing data lowers the score without implying wrongdoing.