Scoring Methodology

01 — Two platforms, one scoring engine

GreenSpecs and YKO.Earth run on the same rubric

The scoring dimensions, weights, and tier thresholds are identical across both platforms. What differs is how data enters the system. GreenSpecs collects it at the shelf via camera. YKO.Earth collects it through brand research, public disclosures, and third-party certifications. The same score means the same thing in both contexts.

GreenSpecs.app

Point your camera at any product packaging. Gemini Vision reads every visible sustainability claim, cross-references it against known certification databases, and flags unsupported assertions in real time.

Score is generated from what’s visibly claimed on the label — not from brand marketing pages. This means a product that makes no claims scores neutrally, not negatively. Silence is not a flag. Unverified noise is.

YKO.Earth

Brand-level scores draw from public regulatory filings, third-party certification records, published sustainability reports, supplier disclosures, and GreenSpecs scan data as a real consumer demand signal.

Each data point is tagged with a source tier (see below). The score you see reflects the quality of the evidence, not just the presence of claims. A brand that publishes strong claims with weak evidence scores lower than one that publishes modest claims with strong evidence.

02 — Data source tiers

Where the data comes from determines how much it counts

Not all sustainability data is equal. A brand claiming “carbon neutral” on its website means something very different from a brand that has published a third-party verified emissions report. YKO tracks the source tier of every data point and uses it to set the confidence level on each score.

Self-reported

Comes from the brand’s own website, marketing materials, or product packaging without independent verification. We include it because transparency matters even at this level. But self-reported data carries lower weight in confidence calculations and is flagged when it conflicts with third-party evidence.

Low weight

Document-backed

Supported by published documents — CDP disclosures, SBTI target letters, supplier codes of conduct, sustainability reports with specific metrics. The brand made a formal commitment that can be referenced and tracked over time. Document-backed claims age: a 2019 commitment with no update is treated with lower confidence.

Medium weight

Third-party verified

Validated by an independent certifying body (B Corp, USDA Organic, Science Based Targets initiative, Rainforest Alliance, Fair Trade, etc.) or confirmed through an NGO audit, regulatory filing, or peer-reviewed supply chain mapping. This is the only tier that counts as “verified” in score calculations. We assess the quality of each certification body independently — not all certs are equal.

Full weight

03 — The six scoring dimensions

A 0–100 score across six weighted dimensions

Each dimension is scored 0–10. The six scores are combined using the weights below to produce the final 0–100 YKO total. Dimension scores are always displayed alongside the total so you can see where a brand is strong and where it has gaps — the total alone obscures too much.

Certifications Third-party validation

Which recognized certification bodies have independently assessed this brand or product? Certifications are weighted by their rigor, auditor independence, enforcement mechanism, and geographic scope. Holding a certification does not automatically mean strong performance — we assess what each cert actually covers and what it explicitly omits.

B Corp Science Based Targets USDA Organic Fair Trade Rainforest Alliance 1% for the Planet Non-GMO Project

20%

Supply Chain Upstream transparency

How much does the brand actually know about — and disclose about — its supply chain? This dimension rewards named suppliers, published Tier 1 and Tier 2 supplier lists, third-party supply chain audits, and supplier codes of conduct. Active NGO controversies tied to supply chain practices are a penalty signal. Vague “we work with ethical suppliers” language contributes nothing.

Tier 1 suppliers public Third-party audit published Supplier code of conduct Tier 2 partial disclosure Active NGO controversy

20%

Carbon Emissions & climate

Has the brand disclosed its emissions — including Scope 3 supply chain emissions, not just Scope 1 and 2? Does it have a credible decarbonization commitment with a published roadmap, or only a vague net-zero claim? SBTi-approved targets score higher than commitments without a pathway. “Carbon neutral” claims without verified offset methodology are flagged. Rising emissions with no corrective plan are a negative signal.

SBTi target approved Scope 3 data disclosed Net zero with roadmap Carbon neutral verified Carbon neutral — claim only Emissions rising YoY

20%

Packaging Materials & end-of-life

What percentage of packaging uses recycled content? Is it curbside recyclable, certified compostable, or part of a refill program? Does the brand have a packaging reduction target? Single-use plastic with no stated reduction program is flagged. This dimension is visible and verifiable from the product label — it’s a core GreenSpecs scan signal.

100% recycled content Curbside recyclable Certified compostable Refillable program Packaging reduction target Single-use plastic, no program

15%

Narrative Integrity Claim quality & honesty

Are the brand’s sustainability claims backed by evidence, or are they ambient greenwash? This dimension starts from a neutral midpoint and moves up or down. Verified, specific claims raise the score. A high ratio of marketing language to concrete data lowers it. Brands that are transparent about their gaps and limitations — that acknowledge what they haven’t solved yet — are rewarded. Credible greenwashing flags from NGOs or regulatory bodies apply a penalty.

Verified specific claims Transparent about gaps High unverified claim count Greenwashing flag (credible source)

15%

Circularity Product lifespan & end-of-life

Does the product have a take-back or repair program? Is it designed to last, or designed to be replaced? Durable construction, lifetime warranties, take-back schemes, and designed-for-disassembly principles all contribute here. This dimension is most relevant to apparel, electronics, and hard goods — for pure CPG food products it carries the same weight but typically scores lower across the category.

Take-back or repair program Lifetime warranty Designed for disassembly Biodegradable end-of-life Durable materials

10%

NOTE

Commodity category adjustment: for high-risk commodity ingredients (coffee, cocoa, palm oil, soy, oat milk, olive oil, and others), the weight of the Certifications and Supply Chain dimensions is increased relative to Packaging and Circularity. In commodity categories, third-party sourcing certifications and named-origin traceability are the primary differentiators — packaging claims are near-universal and therefore less informative. The 0–100 scale and all tier thresholds remain the same.

04 — GreenSpecs scan flow

How the camera scan produces a score

GreenSpecs does not rely on a product database or barcode lookup. It reads what’s actually on the label. This means it works on any product in any market, including store-brand and private-label goods that appear in no existing database.

1

Image capture

The user points their camera at the product packaging. The app captures a still frame at sufficient resolution to read label text and iconography.

2

AI vision extraction — Gemini Flash

Google Gemini Vision reads the label and extracts all sustainability-related claims: certifications (recognized logos and text), environmental claims (“biodegradable,” “carbon neutral,” “100% recycled”), sourcing claims (“organic,” named farms or regions), and packaging material statements. Each claim is tagged by type and confidence level.

3

Claim verification lookup

Recognized certification claims are cross-referenced against the YKO certification database. A Rainforest Alliance logo is validated as a real certification. A “sustainably sourced” text claim without supporting certification is tagged as self-reported only. Brand slug is matched against the YKO entity database to pull any existing brand-level score data.

4

Six-dimension scoring

The extracted and verified claims are mapped to the six scoring dimensions. The same rubric used for brand-level YKO scores is applied at the product level, weighted by what the label actually claims. Missing dimensions score neutrally — absence of a claim is not penalized unless the category baseline makes omission notable.

5

Scan signal recorded

The scan event is anonymously logged — no user identity, no location beyond a regional approximation. This creates the real-time consumer shelf demand signal that populates brand intelligence dashboards. Brands can see which of their products are being scanned, in which markets, and how their packaging claims are scoring at the moment of purchase decision.

6

Result displayed

Score (0–100), tier label, confidence level, and a breakdown of what the label claims vs. what was verifiable. Red flags are surfaced with plain-English explanations, not jargon. The goal is a decision-useful answer in under 10 seconds.

05 — Confidence levels

Every score carries a confidence rating

A score of 74 backed by three third-party certifications and a published Scope 3 report is very different from a score of 74 inferred from marketing copy and one self-reported claim. Confidence is displayed alongside every score. We consider a score without its confidence level to be incomplete information.

High confidence

Score is based primarily on third-party verified data. Multiple certifications confirmed, supply chain disclosures published, emissions data independently validated. The score is unlikely to change substantially with additional research.

Medium confidence

Mix of document-backed and self-reported data. Some verified claims, some unverified. Score is a reasonable assessment of current evidence but could move meaningfully if additional third-party data becomes available.

Low confidence

Primarily self-reported or inferred from limited public information. The score represents our best assessment of available data but should be treated as directional rather than definitive. A low confidence flag is not an accusation — it is a data quality signal.

06 — Score tiers

Five tiers from 0 to 100

Tier thresholds are fixed, not relative. A brand does not score well because it is better than its competitors — it scores well because its practices and disclosures meet the underlying criteria. Tier labels are intentionally plain and non-moralistic. “Needs Work” means data is sparse or practices are early-stage. It is not a judgment on intent.

90–100

Benchmark Leader

Comprehensive third-party verification across multiple dimensions. Publishing Scope 3 data, holding multiple rigorous certifications, full supply chain transparency, and no active NGO controversies. Fewer than 5% of scored brands reach this tier.

75–89

Committed

Strong practices with substantive evidence. At least one rigorous certification, published emissions data, meaningful supply chain disclosure. Gaps exist but are acknowledged. Patagonia (85.5) and Guayakí (79.0) sit in this tier.

60–74

Progressing

Real sustainability activity with meaningful gaps in disclosure or verification. Some third-party validation but incomplete. Cotopaxi (66.3) and Clover Sonoma (63.0) are current examples. Often brands in active improvement cycles.

40–59

Early Stage

Sustainability activity is limited or documentation is sparse. Some claims made but few verified. Organic Valley (51.5) holds this tier despite meaningful practices — largely due to limited public disclosure.

0–39

Needs Work

Limited verifiable sustainability practices or high ratio of unverified claims to evidence. Primal Kitchen (22.5) and Bachan’s (21.5) are current examples. A low score is not a verdict — it reflects what is publicly verifiable, not necessarily what exists.

07 — Flags

What triggers a flag

Flags are specific findings that surface alongside a score. They are not penalties by themselves (most are already reflected in dimension scoring) — they are signals that warrant closer reading. Flags use plain English, not internal codes. A flagged item is always explained.

carbon neutral — unverified

The brand claims carbon neutrality but has not published a methodology or had the claim verified by a third party. The claim may be accurate — this flag asks for the evidence.

emissions rising

Year-over-year GHG emissions data shows an increase without a corresponding disclosure of why or a corrective roadmap.

greenwashing flag

A credible third party (NGO, regulator, or independent research organization) has published findings that a specific claim is misleading. This is the highest-weight flag and applies a direct score deduction.

carbon not disclosed

No GHG emissions data is publicly available for this brand — not even Scope 1 and 2. For brands above a certain revenue threshold, this is a significant disclosure gap.

single-use plastic — no program

The primary packaging is single-use plastic and the brand has no stated reduction target, transition program, or alternative packaging commitment.

active NGO controversy

Within the past two years, a credible NGO has published findings linking this brand to supply chain labor or environmental violations that have not been publicly addressed.

08 — What we do not count

Things that do not improve a score

As important as what we measure is what we consciously exclude. The following are common in brand sustainability communications but carry no weight in YKO scores — because they carry no verifiable information.

Vague mission language. “We care deeply about the planet” and “sustainability is in our DNA” are marketing copy. They are not scored.

Aspirational targets without roadmaps. A 2050 net-zero pledge with no interim milestones, no published methodology, and no annual progress reports is not treated as a credible commitment.

Charitable giving unconnected to supply chain impact. Donating 1% of revenue to environmental causes does not offset upstream supply chain harm. We track it as one minor signal (1% for the Planet membership), not as a substantive dimension.

Award claims and self-nominations. “Best sustainable brand” claims from industry awards, listicles, or self-submitted rankings are not treated as third-party validation.

Scope 1 and 2 data only. Disclosing only operational emissions (buildings, vehicles) while omitting Scope 3 supply chain emissions does not earn full credit in the Carbon dimension. For most consumer goods brands, Scope 3 is 80–90% of total emissions.

Competitor comparisons. Claiming to be “more sustainable than conventional alternatives” is not scored. YKO measures performance against a fixed rubric, not against a chosen comparison set.

09 — Scope 3 estimation

When emissions data is not publicly available

Most brands below $1B in revenue have not published Scope 3 data. For these brands, YKO uses industry-average emission factors to estimate the likely Scope 3 intensity of the product category. This estimate is always labeled as “estimated — industry average” and is never presented as brand-specific data.

Emission factors are derived from published lifecycle assessment databases (ecoinvent, USDA LCA Digital Commons, academic peer-reviewed sources) for material categories including conventional beef, organic and conventional dairy, cotton and recycled polyester apparel, glass and aluminum packaging, yerba maté, coffee, and soy. The full factor table is versioned alongside the scoring engine.

A brand that publishes its own Scope 3 data — even if that data shows higher emissions than the industry average — scores higher on this dimension than one with no disclosure. Transparency is rewarded regardless of the number.

10 — Methodology changelog

How the rubric evolves

Scoring dimensions and weights are versioned. Any change to the rubric is documented here and applied retroactively to all scored brands so scores remain comparable over time. We do not silently alter scoring logic.

April 2026

v1.0 — Initial scoring engine deployed. Six dimensions, commodity category weight modifier, origin specificity bonus for commodity tie-breaking, three-tier data source architecture. Baseline brands scored: Patagonia, Guayakí, Cotopaxi, Clover Sonoma, Straus Family Creamery, Organic Valley, Mate Factor, Eco Teas, Primal Kitchen, Bachan’s.

Planned

Certification intelligence expansion — adding rigor score (1–5), auditor independence score (1–5), and enforcement score (1–5) to each certification body in the database. These will adjust how much weight each certification carries within the Certifications dimension.