How we score products
The EthiCompare ethics score is a composite 0–100 measurement built from five weighted pillars. Here's exactly what goes into each — and what doesn't.
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
- 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.
- Refusal to disclose parent-company ownership when directly asked.
- Documented forced-labour findings anywhere in the chain of custody.
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.
Small brands with fewer resources for formal certification are structurally disadvantaged. Where we can, we credit self-audited public disclosures — a public factory list, an ingredient percentage breakdown, a take-back programme — because those things also constitute verifiable transparency.
Categories differ. A 78 in fashion means something different from a 78 in food — the pillar weights are identical, but the underlying evidence base is not. Always compare within a category first.
About EthiCompare · Corrections & press · Certifications guide · Brand leaderboard
Score bands, in plain English
Multiple independent certifications, full supply-chain disclosure, active take-back or repair programme, and no active regulatory findings.
At least one heavyweight certification (B Corp / Leaping Bunny / GOTS / Fair Trade) plus good ingredient and packaging disclosure.
Meaningful third-party validation on one pillar but gaps elsewhere — typically opaque supply chain or plastic-heavy packaging.
Marketing claims outpace verifiable evidence. Usable in some categories where alternatives don't exist, but read the notes.
Little or no third-party validation, restricted-substance risks, or documented greenwashing findings.
What we actually check
- Number of audited marks held
- Recency of most recent audit
- Whether the mark is verifiable in the certifier's public directory
- Restricted-substance list (RSL) compliance
- Palm-oil / mica / cotton origin disclosure
- Presence of EWG 'high hazard' inputs
- Public supplier / factory list
- Wages-and-hours audit results
- Country-of-origin transparency
- Recyclability in typical municipal streams
- Post-consumer recycled content
- Refill / take-back / repair programme
- Animal-testing posture in regulated markets
- Regulator findings (FTC / CMA / ASA)
- Parent-company conflicts
- Live controversies from independent watchdogs
Claims we never score
- "Clean", "green", "conscious", "eco" — none of these have a regulated definition.
- "Made with recycled content" without a stated percentage.
- "Sustainably sourced" without a named standard.
- Charity-of-the-month tie-ins as a proxy for ethics.
- Founder biographies, mission statements, or brand story alone.
How this compares to other systems
Methodology FAQ
Why weight certifications at 35%?+
Because they're the most rigorously audited input we have access to. But we cap the pillar so a brand can't collect logos and coast — the other four pillars can still swing the composite score by 65 points.
How do you handle 'in progress' certifications?+
Not scored until published in the certifier's directory. Application status alone earns no credit; a brand can announce anything.
What if a brand doesn't disclose supply-chain data?+
That pillar scores near zero. We deliberately don't assume good faith on missing disclosure — the point of the score is to reward the brands that make verification possible.
Do you factor in price?+
No. Price is context, not ethics. Our 'under $X' hubs group products by budget so users can filter separately.
How does 'cruelty-free' interact with animal testing in China / regulated markets?+
A brand loses credit if it sells in a market that mandates post-market animal testing and has not obtained an exemption. Historic testing is disclosed but weighted less than current posture.
Are AI-generated summaries scored?+
No. Only structured, source-linked facts feed the score. AI helps us summarise those facts on-page but does not decide weights or rankings.