EGG Rubric: Corporate Sustainability Evaluation Framework

# EGG Rubric: Corporate Sustainability Evaluation Framework

## Overview

The **EGG (Environmental, Governance & Goals) Rubric** is a comprehensive evaluation framework for assessing corporate sustainability performance across five critical sustainability themes. This rubric employs a multi-dimensional scoring approach that evaluates both the **quantity** and **quality** of corporate commitments, as well as their **specificity** and **temporal evolution**.

**Version:** 1.0
**Last Updated:** November 21, 2025
**Document Type:** Evaluation Rubric

---

## Rubric Structure

This rubric evaluates companies across **5 Sustainability Themes**:

1. **Waste Circularity**
2. **Climate**
3. **Water**
4. **Human Rights**
5. **Product Sustainability**

Each theme is assessed using three core dimensions:
- **Commitment Volume:** Number and breadth of targets/initiatives
- **Commitment Strength:** Language quality and binding nature
- **Commitment Specificity:** Quantification, timelines, and verifiability

---

## Scoring Methodology

### Overall Scoring Framework

Each sustainability theme is scored on a **0-100 point scale** based on:

| Component | Weight | Description |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| **Commitment Strength** | 40% | Language quality, binding nature, hedging vs. commitment |
| **Quantitative Specificity** | 30% | Presence of measurable targets, percentages, baselines |
| **Timeline Clarity** | 20% | Presence of deadlines, interim milestones, progress tracking |
| **Verification & Transparency** | 10% | Third-party verification, disclosure completeness, citations |

### Commitment Strength Classification

Based on linguistic analysis methodology:

#### **Strong Commitment (3 points)**
**Language Indicators:**
- "Will," "committed to," "pledge," "guarantee," "ensure," "must," "binding"

**Characteristics:**
- Definitive, unqualified statements
- Legal or contractual binding language
- Time-bound with specific deadlines
- Quantified with measurable metrics
- Externally verified or audited

**Examples:**
- "We will achieve 100% recycled materials in all packaging by 2030"
- "We are committed to net zero emissions across our entire value chain by 2040"
- "We guarantee living wages for 100% of supply chain workers by 2027"

**Scoring Criteria:**
- Full points awarded when ALL characteristics present
- Partial credit (2.5 pts) if minor hedging exists but commitment is substantive

---

#### **Moderate Commitment (2 points)**

**Language Indicators:**
- "Target of," "goal of," "plan to," "working towards," "pursuing"

**Characteristics:**
- Clear intention but less binding language
- May have timelines but with flexibility
- Quantified goals without strong enforcement mechanisms
- Internal targets without external verification

**Examples:**
- "Our target is 50% reduction in water consumption by 2030"
- "We are working towards eliminating single-use plastics in operations"
- "Goal of 30% recycled content in products by 2028"

**Scoring Criteria:**
- Full points when intention is clear with quantification
- Reduced credit (1.5 pts) if vague or lacks timelines

---

#### **Weak Commitment (1 point)**

**Language Indicators:**
- "Aim to," "aspire," "hope to," "intend to," "seek to," "strive," "explore," "consider"

**Characteristics:**
- Aspirational rather than binding
- Heavy use of hedging language
- Vague timelines or no deadlines
- Qualitative rather than quantitative
- Conditional language ("subject to," "where possible," "if feasible")

**Examples:**
- "We aspire to reduce our environmental footprint where technically feasible"
- "Exploring opportunities to increase circular materials in future product lines"
- "Committed to continuous improvement in human rights due diligence"

**Scoring Criteria:**
- Minimal points for acknowledgment without action
- Zero points if purely symbolic with no actionable elements

---

#### **No Commitment / Not Disclosed (0 points)**

**Characteristics:**
- No mention of the topic
- Explicit rejection or deprioritization
- Removed from previous reporting without explanation

**Scoring Criteria:**
- Automatic zero for absence
- Additional penalty (-5 points from overall theme score) if previous commitment was retreated

---

### Quantitative Metrics

#### Commitment Ratio Calculation

Following linguistic analysis methodology:

**Formula:**
```
Commitment Ratio = commitment_words / (commitment_words + hedging_words)
```

**Benchmark Scoring:**
- **≥ 0.70:** Exceptional (30/30 points)
- **0.60-0.69:** Strong (25/30 points)
- **0.50-0.59:** Moderate (20/30 points)
- **0.40-0.49:** Weak (15/30 points)
- **< 0.40:** Very Weak (10/30 points)

**Commitment Words:** will, committed, pledge, guarantee, ensure, must, binding, obligated, required
**Hedging Words:** aim, aspire, hope, intend, seek, strive, explore, consider, may, could, subject to, where possible

---

## Theme-Specific Evaluation Criteria

---

## 1. WASTE CIRCULARITY

### Definition
Assessment of corporate commitment to circular economy principles, including material recovery, recycling, waste reduction, closed-loop systems, and design for circularity.

### Evaluation Categories

#### 1.1 Recycled & Renewable Materials
**What to Evaluate:**
- Percentage targets for recycled/renewable content in products
- Material traceability and certification systems
- Bio-based or regenerative material adoption
- Virgin material reduction commitments

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "100% of packaging will contain minimum 80% recycled content by 2028"
- "We will eliminate virgin plastic in all consumer products by 2030"
- "Committed to 50% bio-based materials across product portfolio by 2035"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Quantitative Target** | ≥80% with timeline | 50-79% with timeline | <50% or no timeline | Not disclosed |
| **Scope** | All products/packaging | Major product lines | Limited categories | N/A |
| **Baseline** | Specified with current % | General baseline | No baseline | N/A |
| **Verification** | Third-party certified | Internal tracking | No verification | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Current recycled content percentage (baseline)
- Target percentage with deadline year
- Material types covered (plastics, fibers, metals, etc.)
- Certification standards (e.g., GRS, RCS, FSC)
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 1.2 Take-Back & Recovery Programs
**What to Evaluate:**
- Product take-back systems
- Textile-to-textile or material-to-material recycling
- Collection infrastructure and accessibility
- Volume of materials recovered annually

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Operating take-back programs in 100% of retail locations globally by 2026"
- "Will collect and recycle minimum 25,000 tonnes of used products annually by 2029"
- "Guarantee that 80% of collected textiles will achieve textile-to-textile recycling by 2032"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Geographic Coverage** | All markets | Major markets (>50%) | Limited pilots | No program |
| **Collection Volume** | Quantified annual targets | General volume goals | No volume targets | N/A |
| **Processing Quality** | Material-to-material recycling | Downcycling permitted | Disposal or energy recovery | N/A |
| **Accessibility** | All stores/easy access | Selected locations | Invitation-only | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Number of collection points
- Annual collection volumes (tonnes/units)
- Recycling rates and processing methods
- Geographic coverage details
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 1.3 Design for Circularity
**What to Evaluate:**
- Design principles incorporating circularity (durability, repairability, disassembly)
- Mono-material or easily separable designs
- Standardization for recyclability
- Product lifetime extension strategies

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "100% of new products will be designed for disassembly and recyclability by 2030"
- "All products will carry minimum 5-year durability guarantee with repair services by 2028"
- "Eliminating mixed-material constructions in 90% of product lines by 2031"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Coverage** | All new products | Majority (>60%) | Some product lines | No policy |
| **Design Standards** | Binding design criteria | Guidelines without enforcement | Aspirational principles | N/A |
| **Durability Commitment** | Quantified lifetime targets | General durability goals | No durability focus | N/A |
| **Repair Services** | Available for all products | Limited product categories | No repair services | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Design criteria or standards documents
- Percentage of products meeting circularity standards
- Durability testing protocols
- Repair service availability and uptake
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 1.4 Waste Reduction & Zero Waste
**What to Evaluate:**
- Operational waste reduction targets
- Manufacturing waste minimization
- Zero waste to landfill commitments
- Waste diversion rates

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Zero waste to landfill across all owned facilities by 2027"
- "90% reduction in manufacturing waste intensity (per unit) by 2030 vs. 2020 baseline"
- "100% waste diversion from landfill and incineration by 2029"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Reduction Target** | >80% reduction | 50-80% reduction | <50% reduction | No target |
| **Scope** | All facilities globally | Majority of facilities | Limited facilities | N/A |
| **Timeline** | <5 years | 5-10 years | >10 years or none | N/A |
| **Baseline Provided** | Yes, with current metrics | General baseline | No baseline | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Current waste generation (tonnes/year or per unit)
- Reduction target percentage and deadline
- Waste diversion rate and methods
- Scope of facilities covered
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

### Waste Circularity Theme Score Calculation

**Total Points: 100**

| Component | Max Points | Calculation Method |
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Recycled Materials Commitment | 25 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 8.33 |
| Take-Back Programs Commitment | 25 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 8.33 |
| Design for Circularity | 25 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 8.33 |
| Waste Reduction | 25 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 8.33 |

**Grading Scale:**
- **A (90-100):** Leadership - Comprehensive, binding commitments across all categories
- **B (80-89):** Advanced - Strong commitments with minor gaps
- **C (70-79):** Moderate - Clear targets but limited scope or weak language
- **D (60-69):** Developing - Aspirational goals without strong commitments
- **F (<60):** Insufficient - Minimal or no circular economy strategy

---

## 2. CLIMATE

### Definition
Assessment of corporate commitments to greenhouse gas emissions reduction, climate neutrality, renewable energy adoption, and alignment with climate science and global agreements.

### Evaluation Categories

#### 2.1 Emissions Reduction Targets
**What to Evaluate:**
- Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions reduction targets
- Science-Based Targets (SBTi) validation
- Baseline year and current emissions
- Interim milestones and final deadlines

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Committed to 50% absolute Scope 1+2 emissions reduction by 2030 vs. 2019 baseline, validated by SBTi"
- "Will achieve 30% Scope 3 emissions reduction across full value chain by 2030, aligned with 1.5°C pathway"
- "Net zero emissions across all scopes by 2040, with interim targets of 25% by 2025 and 50% by 2030"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Scope 1+2 Target** | ≥50% by 2030 | 30-49% by 2030 | <30% or post-2030 | No target |
| **Scope 3 Inclusion** | Yes, quantified | Yes, qualitative | No Scope 3 | N/A |
| **Science Alignment** | SBTi validated 1.5°C | SBTi well-below 2°C | Internal assessment | No alignment |
| **Baseline Clarity** | Specific year + current data | General baseline | No baseline | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Baseline year and emissions (tCO2e)
- Current emissions by scope
- Reduction target % and deadline year
- SBTi validation status and pathway
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 2.2 Net Zero & Carbon Neutrality
**What to Evaluate:**
- Net zero commitment with clear definition
- Timeline to net zero
- Interim milestones
- Offset vs. absolute reduction strategy
- Carbon removal and neutralization plans

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Net zero emissions across all scopes by 2040 through 90% absolute reductions and <10% high-quality carbon removal"
- "Carbon neutral operations (Scope 1+2) by 2025 via 100% renewable energy, with net zero value chain by 2045"
- "Committed to net zero aligned with SBTi Net Zero Standard, with 2030 near-term targets approved"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Net Zero Deadline** | By 2040 | 2041-2050 | Post-2050 or undefined | No commitment |
| **Reduction Priority** | >90% absolute reductions | 70-90% reductions | Offset-heavy (<70%) | N/A |
| **Scope Coverage** | All scopes (1+2+3) | Scope 1+2 only | Scope 1 or 2 only | N/A |
| **Standard Alignment** | SBTi Net Zero Standard | Other credible framework | No framework | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Net zero target year
- Definition of net zero used
- Planned reduction vs. offset breakdown
- Carbon removal strategies
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 2.3 Renewable Energy
**What to Evaluate:**
- Renewable electricity targets and timelines
- Current renewable energy percentage
- RE100 membership or equivalent commitment
- Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and sourcing strategy

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "100% renewable electricity across global operations by 2025, validated by RE100"
- "Will source 75% renewable energy by 2027 through direct PPAs, with 100% by 2030"
- "Committed to 100% renewable energy for Scope 1+2, including heating and fleet by 2028"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Target Ambition** | 100% by 2030 | 100% post-2030 or 75%+ by 2030 | <75% or no timeline | No target |
| **Current Progress** | >50% renewable | 25-50% renewable | <25% renewable | Not disclosed |
| **Scope** | All energy (elec + heat + fleet) | Electricity only | Limited operations | N/A |
| **Sourcing Quality** | PPAs + on-site generation | Market-based instruments | Unbundled RECs | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Current renewable energy % (baseline)
- Target % and deadline year
- RE100 or equivalent commitment
- Sourcing mechanisms (PPAs, on-site, etc.)
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 2.4 Climate Advocacy & Governance
**What to Evaluate:**
- Climate risk disclosure (TCFD alignment)
- Board-level climate oversight
- Climate lobbying and trade association alignment
- Climate-related executive compensation linkage

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Full TCFD disclosure implemented since 2021, with climate scenario analysis (1.5°C, 2°C, 3°C)"
- "Board Sustainability Committee with quarterly climate oversight; CEO compensation 20% linked to emissions targets"
- "Conducted trade association climate alignment review; exited 3 associations misaligned with Paris goals"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **TCFD Compliance** | Full compliance with scenarios | Partial compliance | Acknowledgment only | No disclosure |
| **Board Oversight** | Dedicated committee + expertise | Board-level discussion | Management-level only | No oversight |
| **Compensation Link** | >15% exec comp tied to targets | 5-15% linkage | <5% or indirect | No linkage |
| **Advocacy Alignment** | Full transparency + Paris-aligned | Some disclosure | No disclosure | Misaligned lobbying |

**Required Documentation:**
- TCFD implementation status
- Board structure for climate oversight
- Executive compensation climate linkage %
- Trade association climate alignment
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

### Climate Theme Score Calculation

**Total Points: 100**

| Component | Max Points | Calculation Method |
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Emissions Reduction Targets | 30 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 10 |
| Net Zero & Carbon Neutrality | 30 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 10 |
| Renewable Energy | 25 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 8.33 |
| Climate Governance | 15 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 5 |

**Grading Scale:**
- **A (90-100):** Leadership - SBTi validated, net zero by 2040, 100% RE by 2030, full TCFD
- **B (80-89):** Advanced - Strong targets with minor gaps or later deadlines
- **C (70-79):** Moderate - Targets exist but lack ambition or science alignment
- **D (60-69):** Developing - General commitments without specificity
- **F (<60):** Insufficient - Minimal climate strategy or misalignment with Paris Agreement

---

## 3. WATER

### Definition
Assessment of corporate commitments to water stewardship, consumption reduction, wastewater management, and water quality protection in operations and supply chains.

### Evaluation Categories

#### 3.1 Water Consumption Reduction
**What to Evaluate:**
- Water withdrawal/consumption reduction targets
- Water intensity metrics (per unit production)
- Baseline and current water usage data
- Geographic prioritization (water-stressed regions)

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "50% reduction in water consumption per unit produced by 2030 vs. 2020 baseline"
- "Will reduce absolute water withdrawal by 30% across all facilities by 2028, prioritizing water-stressed regions"
- "Committed to 40% water intensity reduction in manufacturing by 2027, validated by third-party audit"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Reduction Target** | ≥40% by 2030 | 20-39% by 2030 | <20% or post-2030 | No target |
| **Metric Type** | Absolute + intensity | Intensity only | Absolute only | Not specified |
| **Baseline Provided** | Yes, with current data | General baseline | No baseline | N/A |
| **Geographic Focus** | Water-stressed prioritized | All regions equally | No prioritization | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Baseline water consumption (m³/year or per unit)
- Current water usage
- Reduction target % and deadline
- Water-stressed region identification
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 3.2 Wastewater Management & Quality
**What to Evaluate:**
- Wastewater treatment commitments
- Discharge quality standards
- Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) alignment
- Wastewater reuse and recycling targets

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "100% of wastewater treated to meet or exceed local standards before discharge by 2026"
- "Zero discharge of hazardous chemicals (ZDHC MRSL compliance) across all wet processing facilities by 2028"
- "Committed to 50% wastewater recycling and reuse in manufacturing by 2030"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Treatment Standard** | Exceeds regulations + ZDHC | Meets regulations | Below standards or unclear | No commitment |
| **Scope Coverage** | 100% of facilities | >75% of facilities | <75% of facilities | Not disclosed |
| **Recycling Target** | ≥40% reuse | 20-39% reuse | <20% or no target | N/A |
| **Verification** | Third-party tested | Internal monitoring | No verification | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Wastewater treatment processes
- Discharge quality standards met
- ZDHC or equivalent alignment
- Wastewater reuse percentage and target
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 3.3 Supply Chain Water Stewardship
**What to Evaluate:**
- Supplier water management requirements
- Water risk assessment in supply chain
- Collaboration programs in water-stressed regions
- Supplier water data collection and targets

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "100% of Tier 1 suppliers in water-stressed regions will implement water stewardship plans by 2027"
- "Require 30% water reduction from all strategic suppliers by 2030, with annual reporting"
- "Operating supplier collaboration programs in 15 water-stressed basins, impacting 200+ suppliers"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Supplier Requirements** | Binding with targets | General guidelines | Voluntary recommendations | No requirements |
| **Risk Assessment** | Basin-level + supplier-specific | General regional assessment | No assessment | N/A |
| **Collaboration Programs** | Active in multiple basins | Limited programs | No collaboration | N/A |
| **Data Collection** | Required + verified | Requested but not verified | No collection | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Supplier water policies or requirements
- Water risk assessment methodology
- Number of suppliers engaged
- Geographic focus areas
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 3.4 Water Governance & Transparency
**What to Evaluate:**
- Water data disclosure (CDP Water, GRI, etc.)
- Context-based water targets
- Watershed-level engagement
- Water-related risk disclosure

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Full CDP Water disclosure with A rating achieved; context-based targets set for all high-risk basins"
- "Active participation in 8 watershed governance bodies; contributing to collective action in 12 basins"
- "Publicly disclose water withdrawal, consumption, and discharge for all facilities annually"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Disclosure Platform** | CDP Water A/A- | CDP Water B | CDP Water C or below | No CDP response |
| **Context-Based Targets** | Set for all high-risk sites | Set for some sites | No context-based targets | N/A |
| **Watershed Engagement** | Active multi-stakeholder | Limited engagement | No engagement | N/A |
| **Facility-Level Data** | Public for all facilities | Aggregated only | No facility data | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- CDP Water score or equivalent
- Context-based target methodology
- Watershed partnerships list
- Public facility-level water data
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

### Water Theme Score Calculation

**Total Points: 100**

| Component | Max Points | Calculation Method |
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Water Consumption Reduction | 30 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 10 |
| Wastewater Management | 30 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 10 |
| Supply Chain Stewardship | 25 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 8.33 |
| Water Governance | 15 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 5 |

**Grading Scale:**
- **A (90-100):** Leadership - Ambitious targets, ZDHC compliance, context-based goals, CDP A
- **B (80-89):** Advanced - Strong reduction targets with supply chain engagement
- **C (70-79):** Moderate - Operational targets but limited supply chain action
- **D (60-69):** Developing - General commitments without specificity
- **F (<60):** Insufficient - Minimal water stewardship strategy

---

## 4. HUMAN RIGHTS

### Definition
Assessment of corporate commitments to human rights due diligence, worker rights, living wages, health and safety, diversity and inclusion, and modern slavery prevention across operations and supply chains.

### Evaluation Categories

#### 4.1 Living Wage & Fair Compensation
**What to Evaluate:**
- Living wage commitments and definitions
- Geographic scope and timeline
- Wage gap closure strategies
- Supplier payment practices (purchasing practices)

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Guarantee living wages for 100% of supply chain workers by 2030, using Fair Wage Network methodology"
- "Will close wage gap to living wage benchmark in all Tier 1 facilities by 2027, with annual progress reporting"
- "Committed to responsible purchasing practices ensuring supplier capacity to pay living wages; 25% price premiums implemented"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Commitment Scope** | 100% of supply chain | Tier 1 suppliers | Own operations only | No commitment |
| **Timeline** | By 2030 | 2031-2035 | Post-2035 or none | N/A |
| **Methodology** | Credible standard (AFW, FWN) | Internal calculation | No methodology | N/A |
| **Purchasing Practices** | Adjusted to enable living wages | Under review | No adjustment | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Living wage definition and standard used
- Current wage levels vs. living wage benchmarks
- Timeline for achieving living wages
- Purchasing practice changes
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 4.2 Freedom of Association & Collective Bargaining
**What to Evaluate:**
- Worker representation and union rights
- Collective bargaining coverage
- Freedom of association policies
- Grievance mechanisms and worker voice

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Uphold freedom of association and collective bargaining rights per ILO Conventions 87 and 98 across all operations and suppliers"
- "Committed to 80% collective bargaining coverage across supply chain by 2029, with supplier training programs"
- "Zero tolerance for union-busting; binding supplier requirements include freedom of association audits"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Policy Strength** | Binding per ILO 87/98 | General policy | Acknowledgment only | No policy |
| **Supply Chain Coverage** | Required for all suppliers | Required for Tier 1 | Own operations only | N/A |
| **Bargaining Coverage** | >60% of workforce | 30-60% coverage | <30% coverage | Not disclosed |
| **Grievance Mechanism** | Accessible + remediation | Exists but limited access | No mechanism | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Freedom of association policy
- Collective bargaining coverage %
- Supplier requirements
- Grievance mechanism description
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 4.3 Health, Safety & Working Conditions
**What to Evaluate:**
- Occupational health and safety (OHS) management systems
- Injury and fatality rates (LTIFR, TRIFR)
- Safety targets and improvement plans
- Supply chain safety requirements

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Zero fatalities and 50% reduction in Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR) by 2028 vs. 2020 baseline"
- "ISO 45001 certification for 100% of owned facilities and Tier 1 suppliers by 2027"
- "Committed to comprehensive fire and building safety per Accord standards across all garment suppliers"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Safety Targets** | Quantified + zero fatalities | General reduction goals | No targets | N/A |
| **Current Performance** | LTIFR disclosed + improving | LTIFR disclosed | No disclosure | N/A |
| **Management System** | ISO 45001 or equivalent | Internal system | No formal system | N/A |
| **Supply Chain Coverage** | Binding requirements + audits | Voluntary guidelines | No requirements | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- LTIFR, TRIFR, or equivalent metrics
- OHS management system certification
- Safety targets and timelines
- Supplier safety requirements (e.g., Accord)
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 4.4 Modern Slavery & Forced Labor Prevention
**What to Evaluate:**
- Human trafficking and forced labor policies
- Due diligence systems (UNGPs alignment)
- Supply chain transparency (tier visibility)
- Remedy and remediation mechanisms

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Zero tolerance for forced labor; conducted human rights impact assessments in 100% of high-risk supplier facilities"
- "Published Tier 1 and Tier 2 supplier lists (95% transparency) with annual updates and risk assessments"
- "Committed to remedy-first approach; established $5M fund for worker remediation with independent oversight"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Due Diligence** | UNGPs-aligned HRDD | Risk assessments conducted | Audits only | No due diligence |
| **Supply Chain Transparency** | Tier 1+2 published | Tier 1 published | No transparency | N/A |
| **Remediation** | Established fund + process | Ad hoc remediation | No remediation | N/A |
| **Independent Oversight** | External verification | Internal oversight | No oversight | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Modern slavery statement
- Supplier list publication (tier coverage)
- Human rights due diligence framework
- Remediation cases and outcomes
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 4.5 Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI)
**What to Evaluate:**
- Gender diversity targets (board, leadership, workforce)
- Pay equity analysis and commitments
- Underrepresented group representation
- Inclusive culture policies

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Achieve 50% women in leadership by 2027 and gender pay equity (100%) across all roles by 2026"
- "Committed to 30% underrepresented groups in management by 2030, with annual pay equity audits"
- "Board diversity: minimum 40% women and 30% ethnic diversity by 2025"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Leadership Diversity** | ≥40% women + ethnic targets | 30-39% women | <30% or no target | No commitment |
| **Pay Equity** | 100% parity + audited | Working towards parity | No analysis | N/A |
| **Board Diversity** | ≥40% women + ethnic | 30-39% women | <30% | Not disclosed |
| **Accountability** | Public targets + progress | Internal targets | No targets | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Current diversity metrics (gender, ethnicity)
- Diversity targets and timelines
- Pay equity analysis results
- Board diversity composition
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

### Human Rights Theme Score Calculation

**Total Points: 100**

| Component | Max Points | Calculation Method |
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Living Wage & Fair Compensation | 25 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 8.33 |
| Freedom of Association | 20 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 6.67 |
| Health & Safety | 20 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 6.67 |
| Modern Slavery Prevention | 20 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 6.67 |
| Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | 15 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 5 |

**Grading Scale:**
- **A (90-100):** Leadership - Living wage by 2030, UNGPs-aligned HRDD, full transparency, strong DEI
- **B (80-89):** Advanced - Strong commitments with credible timelines
- **C (70-79):** Moderate - Policies exist but limited binding commitments
- **D (60-69):** Developing - Audit-based approach without systemic change
- **F (<60):** Insufficient - Minimal human rights strategy beyond compliance

---

## 5. PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY

### Definition
Assessment of corporate commitments to sustainable product design, materials, lifecycle impacts, product labeling, chemical safety, and product-level environmental footprint reduction.

### Evaluation Categories

#### 5.1 Sustainable Materials & Sourcing
**What to Evaluate:**
- Sustainable material sourcing targets (organic, certified, regenerative)
- Elimination of harmful materials
- Traceability and certification systems
- Biodiversity and deforestation commitments

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "100% of cotton, wood, and palm oil will be certified sustainable (OCS, FSC, RSPO) by 2025"
- "Will eliminate all virgin fossil-fuel-based materials by 2035, replacing with bio-based or recycled alternatives"
- "Committed to zero deforestation across all supply chains by 2025, with satellite monitoring and verification"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Material Coverage** | All key materials with targets | Majority of materials | Limited materials | No targets |
| **Certification** | Third-party certified (OCS, FSC, etc.) | Internal standards | No certification | N/A |
| **Deforestation** | Zero deforestation by 2025 | Zero deforestation post-2025 | General commitment | No commitment |
| **Traceability** | Full chain of custody | Partial traceability | No traceability | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- Current % of certified sustainable materials
- Target % and deadline for each material type
- Certification standards used
- Deforestation policy and verification
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 5.2 Chemical Safety & Management
**What to Evaluate:**
- Restricted substances lists (RSL) and compliance
- Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) commitment
- Chemical testing and transparency
- Safer chemistry innovation

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "100% compliance with ZDHC Manufacturing Restricted Substances List (MRSL) across all suppliers by 2025"
- "Committed to eliminating all substances of very high concern (SVHC) from products by 2027"
- "Public disclosure of product chemistry via ingredient transparency programs (e.g., Chemical Footprint Project)"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **ZDHC Commitment** | Full MRSL compliance by 2025 | MRSL compliance post-2025 | Partial compliance | No commitment |
| **RSL Rigor** | Beyond regulatory (SVHC elimination) | Meets regulations | Below regulations | No RSL |
| **Testing & Verification** | 100% products tested | Risk-based testing | Limited testing | No testing |
| **Transparency** | Public ingredient disclosure | Internal tracking | No transparency | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- ZDHC membership and compliance status
- RSL document and compliance rates
- Chemical testing protocols
- Hazardous substance elimination timeline
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 5.3 Product Environmental Footprint
**What to Evaluate:**
- Product lifecycle assessments (LCA)
- Carbon footprint labeling
- Water and energy footprint reduction
- Product-level environmental targets

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "Conduct lifecycle assessments (LCA) for 100% of product categories by 2026, with EPD publication"
- "50% reduction in average product carbon footprint by 2030 vs. 2020 baseline"
- "Carbon footprint labeling on 100% of products by 2028, with consumer-facing data"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **LCA Coverage** | 100% of categories | Majority of categories | Limited categories | No LCAs |
| **Carbon Footprint Target** | ≥40% reduction by 2030 | 20-39% reduction | <20% or post-2030 | No target |
| **Labeling** | Carbon labels on all products | Limited labeling | No labeling | N/A |
| **Third-Party Verification** | EPDs or equivalent | Internal LCAs | No verification | N/A |

**Required Documentation:**
- LCA methodology and coverage
- Average product carbon footprint (baseline and current)
- Reduction target and timeline
- Product labeling implementation
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 5.4 Product Longevity & End-of-Life
**What to Evaluate:**
- Durability and quality commitments
- Warranty and guarantee programs
- Repair services and spare parts availability
- End-of-life instructions and infrastructure

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "All products will carry minimum 5-year durability guarantee with free repair services by 2027"
- "Committed to providing spare parts for 100% of products for minimum 10 years post-purchase"
- "End-of-life take-back for 100% of products with material recovery rate >80% by 2030"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Durability Commitment** | ≥5 year guarantee | 2-4 year guarantee | <2 years or none | No commitment |
| **Repair Services** | Free repairs for all products | Paid repairs available | Limited availability | No repairs |
| **Spare Parts** | Available ≥10 years | Available 5-9 years | <5 years | Not available |
| **Take-Back** | All products + high recovery | Limited product categories | Take-back only | No program |

**Required Documentation:**
- Warranty and guarantee terms
- Repair service availability and uptake
- Spare parts availability policy
- End-of-life take-back rates
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

#### 5.5 Product Transparency & Labeling
**What to Evaluate:**
- Sustainability labeling (ecolabels, certifications)
- Supply chain transparency (origin disclosure)
- Environmental product declarations (EPDs)
- Consumer education and information

**Strong Commitment Examples:**
- "100% of products will carry third-party ecolabels (EU Ecolabel, Cradle to Cradle, etc.) by 2029"
- "Full supply chain transparency with country-of-origin and facility-level disclosure for all products by 2026"
- "Committed to publishing Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for all product categories by 2028"

**Scoring Guidelines:**
| Criteria | Strong (3) | Moderate (2) | Weak (1) | None (0) |
|----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Ecolabel Coverage** | ≥75% of products | 40-74% of products | <40% of products | No ecolabels |
| **Supply Chain Disclosure** | Facility-level for all products | Country-level disclosure | Limited disclosure | No transparency |
| **EPD Publication** | All product categories | Some categories | No EPDs | N/A |
| **Consumer Access** | Point-of-sale + digital | Digital only | Limited information | No access |

**Required Documentation:**
- Ecolabel certifications and coverage %
- Supply chain transparency level
- EPD publication status
- Consumer information availability
- Page reference from corporate reports

---

### Product Sustainability Theme Score Calculation

**Total Points: 100**

| Component | Max Points | Calculation Method |
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Sustainable Materials | 25 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 8.33 |
| Chemical Safety | 20 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 6.67 |
| Product Footprint | 20 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 6.67 |
| Product Longevity | 20 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 6.67 |
| Product Transparency | 15 | Avg of 4 criteria × commitment strength (0-3) × 5 |

**Grading Scale:**
- **A (90-100):** Leadership - Comprehensive LCAs, ZDHC compliance, ecolabels, durability guarantees
- **B (80-89):** Advanced - Strong sustainable materials with product transparency
- **C (70-79):** Moderate - Some sustainable materials but limited lifecycle approach
- **D (60-69):** Developing - Basic material commitments without product-level strategy
- **F (<60):** Insufficient - Minimal product sustainability integration

---

## Overall EGG Rubric Score

### Aggregated Company Score

**Total Score: 0-100 points** (average across all 5 themes)

| Theme | Weight | Max Points |
|-------|--------|------------|
| Waste Circularity | 20% | 20 |
| Climate | 20% | 20 |
| Water | 20% | 20 |
| Human Rights | 20% | 20 |
| Product Sustainability | 20% | 20 |

**Overall Grading Scale:**
- **A (90-100):** Sustainability Leader - Best-in-class commitments across all themes
- **B (80-89):** Advanced Performer - Strong performance with minor gaps
- **C (70-79):** Moderate Performer - Clear commitments but limited ambition or scope
- **D (60-69):** Developing Performer - Basic commitments without strong execution
- **F (<60):** Lagging Performer - Minimal sustainability strategy

---

## Data Collection Template

### Required Data Per Theme

For each company evaluation, collect the following data:

**1. Document Inventory**
- [ ] Annual Report (most recent + previous 2 years)
- [ ] Sustainability Report (most recent + previous 2 years)
- [ ] Modern Slavery Statement
- [ ] Corporate Governance Report
- [ ] CDP Climate, Water, Forest responses
- [ ] Supplier Code of Conduct
- [ ] Human Rights Policy
- [ ] Environmental Policy

**2. Extracted Data Structure**

```csv
Company,Year,Theme,Sub-Category,Commitment,Strength,Target_%,Timeline,Baseline,Verification,Page_Reference
Example Corp,2024,Climate,Emissions Reduction,"50% Scope 1+2 reduction by 2030",Strong,50%,2030,2019 baseline,SBTi,Annual Report 2024:45
```

**3. Scoring Worksheet Template**

```
Company Name: _________________
Evaluation Date: _________________
Documents Reviewed: _________________

THEME 1: WASTE CIRCULARITY (0-100)
├─ Recycled Materials: ___/25
├─ Take-Back Programs: ___/25
├─ Design for Circularity: ___/25
└─ Waste Reduction: ___/25
   TOTAL: ___/100 (Grade: ___)

THEME 2: CLIMATE (0-100)
├─ Emissions Reduction: ___/30
├─ Net Zero: ___/30
├─ Renewable Energy: ___/25
└─ Climate Governance: ___/15
   TOTAL: ___/100 (Grade: ___)

THEME 3: WATER (0-100)
├─ Water Reduction: ___/30
├─ Wastewater Management: ___/30
├─ Supply Chain Stewardship: ___/25
└─ Water Governance: ___/15
   TOTAL: ___/100 (Grade: ___)

THEME 4: HUMAN RIGHTS (0-100)
├─ Living Wage: ___/25
├─ Freedom of Association: ___/20
├─ Health & Safety: ___/20
├─ Modern Slavery Prevention: ___/20
└─ DEI: ___/15
   TOTAL: ___/100 (Grade: ___)

THEME 5: PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY (0-100)
├─ Sustainable Materials: ___/25
├─ Chemical Safety: ___/20
├─ Product Footprint: ___/20
├─ Product Longevity: ___/20
└─ Product Transparency: ___/15
   TOTAL: ___/100 (Grade: ___)

OVERALL EGG SCORE: ___/100 (Grade: ___)
```

---

## Interpretation Guidelines

### How to Use This Rubric

**Step 1: Document Collection**
- Gather all relevant corporate disclosures from the past 3 years
- Prioritize integrated reports, sustainability reports, and CDP responses

**Step 2: Systematic Extraction**
- For each theme, systematically extract commitments using keyword searches
- Capture exact language, page references, and context

**Step 3: Commitment Classification**
- Classify each commitment as Strong (3), Moderate (2), Weak (1), or None (0)
- Use the language indicators and characteristics defined in this rubric

**Step 4: Score Calculation**
- Calculate sub-category scores using the provided formulas
- Aggregate to theme-level scores (0-100 scale)
- Calculate overall EGG score as weighted average

**Step 5: Trend Analysis**
- If evaluating over multiple years, track score evolution
- Identify strengthening, maintenance, or retreat patterns
- Correlate with regulatory changes or external events

**Step 6: Benchmarking**
- Compare company scores to industry averages
- Identify best-in-class performers for each theme
- Highlight gaps and opportunities for improvement

---

## Quality Assurance

### Verification Protocol

**1. Source Citation Validation**
- Every commitment must include page reference
- Verify extracting context matches original document
- Maintain audit trail for all scoring decisions

**2. Inter-Rater Reliability**
- When possible, have 2+ evaluators score independently
- Reconcile discrepancies through discussion
- Document rationale for borderline classifications

**3. Consistency Checks**
- Use standardized keyword lists for extraction
- Apply commitment strength criteria uniformly
- Review scores for outliers or inconsistencies

**4. Temporal Validation**
- Check for year-over-year consistency in reporting
- Identify unexplained target changes or retreats
- Verify that baseline years remain consistent

---

## Limitations & Considerations

### Known Limitations

1. **Disclosure-Based Assessment**
   - This rubric evaluates *commitments*, not *performance*
   - Strong commitments may not translate to implementation
   - Lack of disclosure ≠ lack of action (but transparency matters)

2. **Language-Focused Scoring**
   - Commitment strength relies on linguistic analysis
   - Legal/cultural differences may affect language use
   - Hedging may reflect legal caution, not weak intent

3. **Point-in-Time Snapshot**
   - Scores reflect documents at time of evaluation
   - Interim progress may not be captured
   - Requires annual re-evaluation for trend analysis

4. **Equal Weighting Assumption**
   - All 5 themes weighted equally (20% each)
   - Users may adjust weights based on sector materiality
   - Sub-categories weighted based on relative importance

### Recommendations for Use

- **Sector-Specific Adjustments:** Weight themes based on materiality (e.g., water higher for apparel, chemicals)
- **Contextual Interpretation:** Consider company size, geography, and operating context
- **Trend Over Time:** Multi-year evaluation more valuable than single snapshot
- **Supplementary Verification:** Combine with third-party ratings (CDP, MSCI, Sustainalytics)
- **Stakeholder Input:** Engage with NGOs, unions, and communities for ground-truth validation

---

## Appendix: Reference Standards

### External Frameworks Referenced

**Climate:**
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)
- Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
- RE100
- Paris Agreement 1.5°C pathway

**Circularity:**
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation Circular Economy Principles
- Global Recycled Standard (GRS)
- Recycled Claim Standard (RCS)
- Cradle to Cradle Certified

**Water:**
- CDP Water Security
- Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS)
- CEO Water Mandate
- ZDHC Wastewater Guidelines

**Human Rights:**
- UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)
- ILO Core Conventions (especially 87, 98, 29, 105)
- Fair Wage Network
- Accord on Fire and Building Safety

**Product Sustainability:**
- Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC)
- Cradle to Cradle Certified
- EU Ecolabel
- Environmental Product Declarations (EPD)
- Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
- Organic Content Standard (OCS)

---

## Changelog

**Version 1.0 (November 21, 2025)**
- Initial rubric creation
- 5 sustainability themes established
- Scoring methodology defined
- Data collection templates provided

---

**End of EGG Rubric**

For questions or suggestions for improvement, please contact the rubric maintainers.