Our Philosophy
"There's no eco or not eco - only choices that are better or worse depending on what you value and what's being hidden."
We don't do absolute judgments. Instead, we show you what claims cover, what they don't, and give you the information to make your own informed choices.
The 5-Question Rubric
Every product claim is scored 0-10 based on these five criteria. Each question is worth 0-2 points.
1. Specificity (0-2 points)
Does the claim use clear numbers instead of vague terms?
2 points: "100% post-consumer recycled content"
1 point: "Made with recycled materials"
0 points: "Eco-friendly packaging"
2. Transparency (0-2 points)
Is the data publicly available and verifiable?
2 points: Published sustainability reports with third-party audits
1 point: Some data available but incomplete
0 points: No public data or verification
3. Third-Party Validation (0-2 points)
Are there real certifications vs. marketing badges?
2 points: Certified by recognized bodies (USDA Organic, Fair Trade, B-Corp)
1 point: Some verification but limited scope
0 points: Self-created badges or no third-party involvement
4. Addresses Biggest Impact (0-2 points)
Does the claim address the main environmental cost of the product, including packaging?
2 points: Addresses primary impact (dairy methane, packaging materials, etc.)
1 point: Addresses a secondary impact
0 points: Focuses on minor details while ignoring major impacts
Note: We always consider packaging materials as part of environmental impact
5. Marketing vs. Action (0-2 points)
Does the branding match the substance?
2 points: Marketing accurately reflects actions
1 point: Some alignment but overselling
0 points: Heavy green marketing with minimal action
What "Confidence" Means
Lots of public data, multiple independent sources, clear documentation. We're confident in this assessment.
Some verifiable data but gaps in coverage. The score is directionally accurate but could shift with more information.
Limited public information available. This is our best estimate based on what we could verify, but take it with a grain of salt.
Our Language: "Could" Not "No"
When we point out what's missing from a claim, we use soft language like:
- "Could include information about..."
- "Doesn't mention..."
- "May not address..."
We do this because absence of information doesn't mean it's not happening - just that we can't verify it. Our job is to note what's missing, not make absolute claims ourselves.
What We Can't Measure
We focus on verifiable claims. We don't score:
- Intentions or future promises without current data
- Comparisons to undefined "traditional" products
- Claims without specific, measurable criteria
- Your personal values or trade-offs
Our Independence
🔒 We don't take money from companies we rate.
Our revenue comes from premium subscriptions for features like saved searches, detailed company profiles, and impact tracking - never from the companies being analyzed.
This keeps our analysis honest and focused on helping you, not pleasing brands.
Questions or Feedback?
See an error? Disagree with a score? We want to hear from you.
Our methodology is always evolving based on user feedback and new research. Contact us at feedback@greenspecs.app