# 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.

Legal & Compliance

EGG Rubric: Corporate Sustainability Evaluation Framework

IATA BCBP Standard Compliance