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

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.