Ethica.
BrandsRankingsMethodology
Log inSign up
BrandsRankingsMethodologyCompareAbout
Log inSign up
Language
Theme

Grades built on cited evidence, reviewed by humans — no AI decides a grade.

MethodologyAboutCorrectionsPrivacyLegal noticeRSS
Methodology v1.3

Methodology

Every grade on Ethica comes out of a deterministic calculation over cited evidence, each piece reviewed by a human. No AI ever decides a grade. This page describes the exact calculation — the engine’s, not a simplified version.

The grade

The overall score (0–100) is the weighted average of the four pillars. The letter follows fixed thresholds:

  • A85–100Strong evidence of responsible practice
  • B70–84Good record, some reservations
  • C55–69Mixed record
  • D40–54Serious documented problems
  • E25–39Grave and repeated problems
  • F0–24Overwhelming evidence or near-total opacity

Four pillars, fifteen criteria

Each pillar groups three or four criteria. A criterion is scored on a published five-level rubric (0, 25, 50, 75, 100) — never a continuous scale, so two reviewers land on the same value. A criterion that does not apply is marked N/A and excluded from its pillar’s average. A whole pillar can be immaterial to the category (e.g. animal welfare for a software company): it is then excluded from the overall score and the remaining pillar weights are renormalized to total 100%. A material pillar with insufficient evidence is likewise excluded — never scored as zero — but it lowers confidence.

Labor

30%
  • · Controversies
  • · Supply-chain transparency
  • · Worker protection
  • · Independent verification

Environment

30%
  • · Controversies
  • · Climate disclosure
  • · Targets & commitments
  • · Independent evidence

Animals

20%
  • · Harm risk
  • · Welfare policy
  • · Independent evidence

Governance

20%
  • · Transparency
  • · Data privacy
  • · Due-diligence policies
  • · Responsiveness

Evidence, classed A–G

Every source is typed and classed. The class weighs on confidence: a regulator decision is not worth the same as a blog post.

ARegulators, courtsDGCCRF, RappelConso, European Commission, court rulings
BNGOsAmnesty, Fashion Revolution, BBFAW, Public Eye
CPressLe Monde, Reuters, Mediapart, investigations
DAcademicPeer-reviewed studies
ECompanyCSR reports, the brand’s own public commitments
FContributedUser-submitted reports
GOtherBlogs, opinion pieces — minimal weight

Confidence: how much evidence stands behind the grade?

The grade says what the evidence shows; confidence says how much evidence there is. Five dimensions, weighted:

  • Quality30%class of the sources (A counts more than G)
  • Coverage25%how many pillars are documented
  • Freshness20%age of the evidence
  • Consistency15%do the sources agree? Since v1.3, claims tied to evidence with a stance (SUPPORTS / REFUTES) feed a net score into this dimension.
  • Traceability10%does every score point back to a source?

Guardrails (automatic caps)

  • · Fewer than 2 documented pillars → confidence ≤ 40
  • · No source external to the company → confidence ≤ 50
  • · Fewer than 3 sources in total → confidence ≤ 55
  • · All evidence older than 3 years → confidence ≤ 60

Displayed as: High ≥ 75 · Medium 41–74 · Low < 41.

Humans, not a black box

Evidence arrives continuously (regulator registers, press, NGO reports). Every item goes through a review queue where a human accepts, rejects or corrects it — source type, pillar, date. Publishing a brand requires at least one linked source; “Verified” status requires one regulator or academic source, or two concurring independent sources. A grade can change when new evidence arrives: that is the point.

What a grade is not

A grade is a snapshot of the public evidence at a point in time — not a final moral verdict, not an internal audit. If something is wrong or outdated, the right of reply is open: every brand page says how to reach us, and any sourced correction is re-scored by the same calculation.