We don't ask companies to describe themselves.
We read court filings, investigative reports, and NGO data instead. Every claim is cited. Every source is rated for reliability.
Our approach: adversarial data
Instead of asking companies to describe themselves, we look at what independent sources say about them. We prioritise adversarial data — information that companies cannot control, edit, or spin.
Court filings & regulatory actions
Lawsuits, SEC/FCA enforcement, DOJ investigations, fines, and settlements. Public record that companies cannot retract.
Investigative journalism
Original reporting from investigative journalists and international press. Not press releases — what's actually happening on the ground.
NGO and watchdog reports
Field-level evidence from human rights organisations, environmental watchdogs, and labour rights groups.
Company disclosures
Annual reports and sustainability filings. Included but weighted lower. Useful context, unreliable as the sole basis for scoring.
11 dimensions, not 1
A single score hides more than it reveals. A company can score well on climate and poorly on worker rights. We show both — across 11 independent dimensions, each with its own evidence base.
Explore all 11 valuesThe scoring process
Source collection
Court filings, regulatory actions, investigative journalism, NGO reports, and company disclosures. Tagged by type, date, and reliability.
Evidence extraction
Claims extracted per dimension with full citations — page numbers, paragraph references, and source URLs.
Reliability weighting
Court rulings outweigh press releases. Named sources outweigh anonymous posts. Every source is weighted.
KPI-based scoring
Specific KPIs per dimension. Detailed rubric mapping evidence to a -100 to +100 scale.
Continuous updates
New lawsuits, investigations, and regulatory actions update scores automatically. Every page shows the last update date.
See it in action
Search any company or upload your portfolio. Every score is fully cited and traceable.