Earthmark Business Environmental Scores For Brands

Rating Methodology

Version 1.0

Last updated: 01 September 2026

1. Purpose and Scope

What Earthmark is. Earthmark is an aggregator of company‑level environmental and governance performance data. We benchmark publicly available information to provide comparative, sector‑specific, size‑adjusted insights that guide consumer and business decision‑making.

Purpose. Earthmark provides a simple, five‑leaf sustainability score that reflects a brand's environmental performance relative to sector peers. The score is designed to help consumers, retailers, and investors identify businesses that are leading on environmental outcomes and to incentivise improved disclosure and performance.

Who Earthmark is designed to support. Earthmark is designed to support companies of all sizes and across all sectors. Current rating coverage depends on the availability, quality, and comparability of publicly available environmental and governance information. As a result, companies with more extensive public disclosures—including many medium and large enterprises—may currently be more readily rated than smaller or privately held companies. Earthmark is working to broaden coverage over time while maintaining consistent, evidence‑based comparisons.

Scope. Earthmark currently assesses companies where sufficient publicly available information is available to apply the methodology reliably. Ratings are based on environmental and governance metrics aligned to ESRS/CSRD topics E1 (Climate Change), E2 (Pollution), and E5 (Circular Economy). Social metrics and additional environmental topics (energy, water, biodiversity) are out of scope at this time.

Regulatory alignment and anti‑greenwashing assessment. Earthmark is a UK‑based company with a current UK focus. While we are not currently authorised or directly supervised under the EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGR), our services may be used by clients in the EU, which can bring aspects of our activities within the scope of EU requirements where those services are used to make environmental claims to EU consumers. With this in mind, and with future geographic expansion in mind, Earthmark aligns to best practices under the new ESGR regulations and voluntarily aligns its governance, methodology disclosure, evidence standards, and record‑keeping with the requirements and expectations of ESGR, the EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (EmpCo) Directive, the EU Green Claims Directive (ECGT), the UK CMA Green Claims Code, ASA guidance on environmental claims, and the US FTC Green Guides. This approach is intended to support clients making compliant environmental communications globally, including in the EU and US, and to promote transparent, well‑substantiated, and comparable environmental information for consumers and businesses. This alignment is not a representation that Earthmark, any rated brand, or any product is certified as compliant with any legal or regulatory regime.

This methodology has been reviewed against:

ESGR (Regulation (EU) 2024/3005 and relevant delegated requirements) for transparency, methodology disclosure, governance, and record‑keeping.
EmpCo and ECGT for substantiation of environmental claims, life‑cycle considerations, fair comparisons, and clarity for consumers.
UK CMA Green Claims Code and ASA guidance for clarity, evidence, and avoidance of misleading or unqualified environmental claims.
US FTC Green Guides for substantiation and specificity of environmental marketing claims.

Our approach is designed to ensure that a company‑level Earthmark is not interpreted as an environmental endorsement of individual products. Ratings reflect sector‑relative performance on disclosed carbon and waste metrics, plus governance and third‑party information; they do not assess product‑level impacts or full life‑cycle performance unless explicitly stated.

2. What Is an Earthmark?

An Earthmark is a 0–5 leaf rating, with:

0 representing minimal environmental performance and disclosure.
5 representing sector‑leading relative performance on the metrics assessed, supported by strong environmental governance.

The rating is industry‑relative: companies are compared with peers in the same sector. It is size‑adjusted through revenue‑based environmental intensity measures. It is impact‑oriented, meaning it considers disclosed environmental performance rather than financial risk to the company.

Earthmarks are company‑level benchmarking insights. They are not product certifications, labels, assurances, or endorsements.

3. Public Brand Pages and Transparency

Public search and access. All published Earthmark ratings are publicly searchable through the Earthmark Brand Directory. The directory enables users to browse and compare published company‑level ratings. The directory states that scores are based on publicly available company disclosures and trusted third‑party sources, including SBTi and B Corp.

Dedicated public brand pages. Each published brand rating has a dedicated public brand page containing a text‑based explanation of the Earthmark and its principal drivers. For an example, see Adidas’ Earthmark page.

Information displayed. Subject to data availability and presentation updates, public brand pages include:

The Earthmark score and score descriptor.
A text‑based explanation of the score and its main drivers.
Benchmarking against the relevant sector average.
Brand information, including sector, company‑size or revenue information, and group relationship information where applicable.
Data‑availability information, including the availability of relevant environmental and governance datapoints.
Links to the public company disclosures and third‑party data sources used in the rating.

Purpose of public pages. Public brand pages are designed to help users understand the basis of each published rating, inspect the source information, and interpret the rating in its sector‑relative context. They are not a substitute for a user’s own due diligence.

Claiming a profile. Brands may claim their public profile free of charge to update factual brand information, review data held by Earthmark, and identify or submit information to address apparent data gaps. Claiming a profile, submitting information, or communicating with Earthmark does not alter the methodology, guarantee an outcome, or give a company any right to influence its Earthmark.

Review of submitted information. Information submitted by a brand is reviewed before use. To be accepted into the rating process, it must be supported by a publicly available, verifiable source that Earthmark can link or otherwise reference on the relevant brand page, subject to applicable legal, safety, and confidentiality considerations. Earthmark checks the source, relevance, reporting period, unit, company boundary, and consistency with the methodology before accepted data is incorporated into a subsequent rating calculation. Earthmark may reject, defer, or request clarification on information that is not publicly verifiable, is incomplete, is inconsistent with the methodology, or cannot reasonably be attributed to the rated company.

4. Data Inputs

4.1 Environmental Data

Scope 1, Scope 2 (location‑based by default; market‑based where available), Scope 3, and total emissions.
Total waste and disposed waste.
Information is sourced from publicly available company sustainability, annual, ESG, climate, or equivalent disclosures. Manual corrections may be applied where supported by a verified public source.

4.2 Governance Data

Completeness of environmental disclosures.
SBTi net‑zero commitment status and target classification (1.5 C, well‑below 2 C, 2 C).

4.3 Third‑Party Data

B Corp certification scores.
Good Shopping Guide scores.
Where third‑party data is unavailable, pillar weights are rescaled proportionally as described in Section 6.3.

4.4 Company Metadata

Sector classification, aligned to GICS; NAICS codes are stored for cross‑referencing.
Revenue (USD), used to calculate intensity metrics.
Parent–subsidiary relationships, where available.

5. Data Extraction, Review and Quality Assurance

Automated extraction. ESG datapoints are extracted from public reports using LLM‑based parsing into a structured format.

Manual review and corrections. Earthmark may apply manual corrections or overrides where evidence from a public, verifiable source shows that an extracted datapoint is incomplete, inaccurate, incorrectly attributed, or outdated. Every accepted correction is recorded in the audit trail and is subject to the same methodology as all other data.

Quality monitoring. Earthmark runs regular manual audits:

A random sample of 100 companies per audit cycle.
Each extracted datapoint in the sample is checked against the underlying source report.
Findings are recorded and used to improve the extraction and quality‑assurance process.
Audit records are retained for a minimum of five years.

Source validation. Source URLs are validated each refresh cycle. Dead, inaccessible, or unverifiable links are removed or flagged, and associated information is excluded from future calculations until a current, verifiable source is available.

Independent assurance. Earthmark ratings are not currently subject to external audit or assurance. However, Earthmark maintains methodology documentation, data lineage, evidence records, and audit logs designed to support independent assurance or regulatory inspection. Earthmark may facilitate evidence summaries and process walkthroughs for regulators, auditors, and other legitimate reviewers on request.

6. Scoring Logic

6.1 Environmental Normalisation and Peer Comparison

For each environmental metric, Earthmark calculates an intensity by dividing the reported metric by revenue. The intensity is log‑transformed and normalised against the relevant sector using a robust median and median absolute deviation (MAD) approach, with outlier capping.

This approach is designed to compare companies on a size‑adjusted basis within their sector. It does not make companies in different sectors directly comparable, and it does not eliminate all differences arising from business model, geography, reporting boundary, or sub‑industry.

6.2 Governance and Third‑Party Scores

Governance sub‑scores are rule‑based and reflect disclosure coverage, SBTi commitment status, and SBTi target ambition.
Third‑party sub‑scores reflect the relevant certifier’s score divided by the certifier’s stated maximum score.

6.3 Pillar Scores, Weighting and Final Rating

Each pillar produces a value in the range −1 to 1. Pillar values are combined using the following weights:

Environmental: 50%.
Governance: 25%.
Third‑party: 25%.

Where no third‑party score is available, the environmental and governance weights are rescaled proportionally to 62.5% and 37.5%, respectively.

The weighted result is mapped linearly to an Earthmark score from 0 to 5. Earthmark applies rounding to one decimal place.

6.4 Peer Selection

Peers are defined at the sector level using GICS, with NAICS stored for cross‑reference.
Companies are benchmarked against the available rating cohort in the same GICS sector.
Sub‑industry and revenue‑bracket segmentation are not currently applied as separate peer‑selection filters.
Revenue normalisation adjusts environmental metrics for company size; it does not remove all comparability limitations between business models, geographies, or sub‑industries.

7. Scoring Scale

0 - Limited data / lowest assessed performance: Minimal disclosed performance and/or disclosure on the metrics assessed.

1 - Starting Out: Significant improvements required relative to sector peers on the metrics assessed.

2 - Room to Grow: Close to the sector average; targeted improvements could strengthen relative performance.

3 - Doing Well: Strong relative performance on the metrics assessed; demonstrates potential for further progress.

4 - Ahead of the Game: Outstanding relative performance on the metrics assessed within the sector.

5 - Frontrunner: Sector‑leading relative performance on the metrics assessed.

Descriptors reflect relative sector performance based on the disclosed metrics assessed. They do not imply absolute environmental superiority, product‑level superiority, or that a company is sustainable in all respects.

8. Handling of Missing Data

Environmental pillar — penalised.

If no valid sustainability or equivalent report URL is available, the environmental pillar is not calculated.
Where a report exists but an individual core metric is missing (for example, Scope 3), that missing metric is treated as the worst‑in‑cohort (score −1) and averaged into the environmental pillar.

Governance pillar — penalised.

Missing disclosure, SBTi commitment, or SBTi target information each contributes a −1 to the relevant governance sub‑score.

Third‑party pillar — not penalised for coverage gaps.

Where one third‑party score is available, the pillar is calculated from that available score.
Where no third‑party scores are available, the pillar is removed and the environmental and governance weights are rescaled as set out in Section 6.3.

Coverage versus a scored outcome. A company may be outside current published rating coverage if Earthmark cannot identify sufficient reliable, public information to apply the methodology. This is distinct from a company that is within the rating process but receives lower pillar values because individual datapoints are missing.

9. Subsidiary Inheritance Logic

Corporate groups may publish environmental data only at group level. In limited circumstances, Earthmark may allow a subsidiary to inherit a rating from a qualifying ancestor in its ownership chain.

Eligibility threshold. A subsidiary is eligible only where its own disclosure is weak: fewer than approximately 35% of the core environmental metrics are disclosed.
Ancestor search. Earthmark searches from the direct parent upwards for an ancestor with better disclosure and a usable public source.
Cycle protection. The ownership‑chain process is protected against loops.
Fallback. If no qualifying ancestor is found, the subsidiary retains the outcome produced by its own available information.

Important: An inherited Earthmark is based on group‑level information and may not reflect the subsidiary’s standalone operations. This is made clear on the relevant brand page where applicable.

10. Refresh Cycle and Versioning

Refresh cycle. Earthmark refreshes company data on a rolling basis, generally every three to four months. A refresh round prioritises companies that:

Have not been processed within the previous three months; or
Do not have a sustainability or equivalent report recorded for the current reporting year.

Earthmark may also process a company earlier where it identifies a material new public disclosure, accepts a verified correction, or determines that existing source information is no longer reliable.

Versioning and material changes. Methodology versions are tagged and published. A material change includes a change that:

Affects more than 5% of published ratings by more than 0.5 leaves;
Changes a pillar weighting by more than 5 percentage points; or
Adds or removes a material data source, metric, or scoring rule.

Material changes are assessed internally, documented, and disclosed publicly with their rationale and effective date.

11. Guiding Principles

Earthmark’s methodology is guided by these core principles:

Transparent. We use public company disclosures and open third‑party sources, and provide links to sources used on published brand pages where available.

Recent. We refresh ratings regularly and use the latest suitable public information available at the time of calculation.

Relevant. Earthmark focuses on carbon emissions, waste management, emissions‑reduction targets, and environmental governance.

Relative. Ratings are sector‑relative and size‑adjusted, including through carbon and waste intensity measures.

Inclusive by design. Earthmark is designed to support organisations of all sizes and sectors. Where comparable public information is insufficient, we explain coverage limitations rather than infer or overstate performance.

Evidence‑based. A rating is based on public, verifiable information and a documented scoring methodology. New information is reviewed before it can be used.

12. Limitations

Earthmark is designed to support companies of all sizes and sectors, but current coverage depends on the availability, quality, and comparability of public disclosures. Smaller and privately held companies may be less likely to have sufficient public environmental and governance information for reliable scoring. Lack of coverage is not itself a statement of environmental performance. Where a company is scored, the environmental and governance pillars may penalise missing individual data points as described in Section 8. This is distinct from being outside rating coverage because no reliable public source is available.

Peer comparisons are at sector level rather than sub‑industry or revenue‑bracket level, so cohorts may be broad. Third‑party inputs are currently limited to B Corp and Good Shopping Guide. Ratings reflect a point‑in‑time calculation and may change as new disclosures become available, data is corrected, or the methodology changes. Ratings may rely on a combination of externally assured and non‑assured company disclosures. Earthmark does not independently verify every underlying company disclosure and is not currently independently assured.

Current scope excludes energy consumption, water, biodiversity, nature, and social topics such as modern slavery and workforce diversity.

Life‑cycle and product scope. Earthmark focuses on company‑level operational and value‑chain emissions (Scopes 1–3) and waste. It does not assess full product life‑cycle impacts or the environmental performance of individual products or services unless expressly stated.

13. Alignment to Standards

Earthmark uses concepts and data points informed by:

GHG Protocol for Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions.
Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) for net‑zero commitment and target‑ambition information.
ESRS/CSRD topics E1 (Climate Change), E2 (Pollution), and E5 (Circular Economy).

Earthmark is a UK‑based company with a current UK focus. Our services may be used by clients in the EU, which can bring aspects of our activities within the scope of EU requirements where those services are used to make environmental claims to EU consumers. With this in mind, and with future geographic expansion in mind, Earthmark aligns to best practices under the new EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGR) and voluntarily aligns its governance, methodology disclosure, evidence standards, and record‑keeping with the requirements and expectations of:

EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGR).
EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (EmpCo) Directive.
EU Green Claims Directive (ECGT).
UK CMA Green Claims Code and ASA guidance on environmental claims.
US FTC Green Guides.

This alignment is intended to support clients making compliant environmental communications globally, including in the EU and US, and to promote transparent, well‑substantiated, and comparable environmental information for consumers and businesses. It is not a representation that Earthmark, any rated brand, or any product is certified as compliant with any legal or regulatory regime.

14. Substantiation and Evidence

Evidence holdings. For every published rating, Earthmark maintains an evidence record that may include:

Source report URLs and extraction records.
Company and reporting‑boundary information.
Data‑availability and missing‑data treatment records.
Manual correction or override records.
Rating calculation version and methodology version.
Rating‑change audit trail.

Evidence standards. Before Earthmark publishes a rating or a related environmental claim, we seek to ensure that evidence is:

Relevant to the specific company‑level, sector‑relative claim made.
Publicly available and reasonably verifiable.
Appropriate to the reporting period, organisational boundary, metric, and unit used.
Presented with material limitations and qualifications where needed to avoid misleading interpretation.

Public access. Public brand pages provide text‑based explanations, data‑availability information, comparative context, and links to source information. Brands, regulators, and other legitimate reviewers may request an evidence summary for a specific rating by emailing hello@earthmark.io.

Retention. Rating evidence, relevant calculation records, and related communications are retained for a minimum of five years.

15. Complaints and Error Correction

Raising a concern or correction request. Companies, consumers, and third parties may submit a query, complaint, or correction request to hello@earthmark.io. Requests should identify the company, rating or datapoint in question, reason for the request, and supporting public source information where available.

Acknowledgement. Earthmark aims to acknowledge submissions within five business days.

Review. The ratings team reviews, as relevant:

Whether the source data is accurate, current, publicly verifiable, and correctly attributed.
Whether the correct company, reporting boundary, sector, revenue, and parent–subsidiary relationship were applied.
Whether the methodology was applied consistently with the relevant peer cohort.
Whether submitted information meets the public‑availability and verification criteria in Section 3.

Outcome. Earthmark provides a written response indicating one of the following outcomes:

Correction applied: The rating is recalculated promptly or during the next scheduled refresh, depending on materiality and operational requirements; the change is recorded in the audit trail.
No change: Earthmark provides a brief explanation referencing the methodology or available evidence.
Further information required: Earthmark requests clarification or a suitable public source.
Escalated: A methodology‑level issue is referred for methodology review.

Audit trail. Rating changes are timestamped and recorded with the reason for change. Records are retained for at least five years.

16. Governance and Conflicts of Interest

Organisational safeguards. Earthmark maintains proportionate governance arrangements to protect the independence, integrity, and transparency of its ratings, benchmarking, and methodology.

Earthmark is currently a small team of two full‑time employees and cannot yet fully separate commercial and methodology functions organisationally. However, rating and methodology decisions are made independently of commercial considerations. Partnerships, sales activity, profile claims, client engagement, and brand engagement do not determine an individual company’s Earthmark, underlying score, benchmark position, data treatment, or methodology.

No company, marketplace, retailer, partner, or other third party can pay to influence, improve, suppress, delay, or otherwise alter an Earthmark, related score, benchmark position, data treatment, or methodology.

Information submitted through a claimed profile is subject to the same documented source-validation, review, and public-verification processes described in Sections 3, 4, and 5 before it may contribute to a rating calculation. Claiming a profile does not give a company control over its Earthmark page, methodology, or rating outcome.

Individuals involved in rating or methodology decisions must disclose and appropriately manage relevant actual, perceived, or potential conflicts of interest. They must not hold financial interests in, or undertake paid advisory work for, rated entities, except where an interest has been disclosed, assessed, and managed under the Earthmark Conflict of Interest Policy.

All staff complete annual training on conflicts of interest, data handling, and relevant regulatory requirements. Rating and methodology changes are logged, documented, and subject to internal review. As Earthmark grows, we will implement formal organisational separation between ratings/methodology and commercial functions.

Advisory Board Oversight. Earthmark has established an Advisory Board of industry experts with cross-industry experience in sustainability, data, consumer protection, and commercial practice. The Advisory Board provides independent oversight and guidance on:

Earthmark’s approach, governance, and methodology for data collection, benchmarking, and scoring.
Operational processes and procedures, including data quality assurance, source validation, and complaints handling.
Commercial client engagements and the identification, handling, and resolution of conflicts of interest.
External communications, public brand pages, and the presentation of comparative insights.
Earthmark’s overall strategic direction, including alignment with industry best practice and evolving regulatory expectations.

The Advisory Board meets quarterly and may be asked to provide occasional asynchronous feedback on relevant materials. Members serve in an unpaid, pro-bono advisory capacity and are expected to act independently of any individual client, brand, marketplace, retailer, investor, or other commercial interest.

Advisory Board members are subject to the Earthmark Conflict of Interest Policy. They must disclose actual, perceived, or potential conflicts of interest, including significant relationships with rated companies, marketplaces, competitors, or other interested parties. Where appropriate, a Board member may be excluded from related discussions or recommendations. Earthmark records disclosed conflicts and the measures taken to manage them.

Record retention. Earthmark retains rating records, rating-calculation models—including methodology, formulas, weightings, and parameter sets—and related communications for a minimum of five years.

Regulatory alignment. Earthmark is a UK-based company with a current UK focus. While it is not currently directly subject to the European Union ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGR), the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (EmpCo) Directive, or the EU Green Claims Directive (ECGT), Earthmark voluntarily adopts relevant best practices from these frameworks to support transparent, well-substantiated, and consumer-focused environmental information. Earthmark also aligns its approach with the UK Competition and Markets Authority Green Claims Code, UK Advertising Standards Authority guidance, and the United States Federal Trade Commission Green Guides.

17. How to Interpret an Earthmark

For brands. An Earthmark reflects sector‑relative, size‑adjusted environmental and governance performance based on the disclosed metrics assessed. It is not an absolute measure of sustainability and does not cover every environmental or social impact.

For consumers. A higher Earthmark indicates stronger relative performance within the relevant sector on the carbon, waste, governance, and third‑party information assessed. It does not mean a company is environmentally sustainable in all respects and should not be interpreted as an endorsement of individual products.

For retailers and investors. Earthmarks are designed to support, not replace, deeper due diligence. Use them alongside product‑level information, supply‑chain assessments, and other decision‑relevant evidence.

Product‑level claims. Earthmark ratings are company‑level and do not assess the environmental performance of specific products or services. Any use of an Earthmark in product‑level marketing must include clear, prominent context that the rating reflects company‑level, sector‑relative performance and is not a product certification or endorsement.

Transparency and verification. Every published Earthmark is accompanied by a public brand page with a written explanation, benchmarked context against the relevant sector average, brand information, company‑size or revenue information, data‑availability information, and links to source information where available. Users are encouraged to review the relevant brand page before relying on a rating.