Read the standard.
HAPPYWorth scoring standard v1.0
Version 1.0 · September 14, 2026
Five dimensions. Equal weight.
Each dimension carries 20% of the score. This is an editorial choice. Purchases, profile claims and company size do not affect scores or weights.
| Dimension | What we assess | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Wellbeing | Experienced wellbeing, work–life support and emotional health. | 20% |
| Connection | Inclusion, belonging and participation in communities. | 20% |
| Vitality | Physical health, occupational safety and product-related health. | 20% |
| Security | Economic stability, personal safety and protection of personal information. | 20% |
| Agency | Informed choice, accessibility, skills, voice and access to remedy. | 20% |
Evidence determines each score.
Each dimension receives one of six evidence scores, with a finding and source explaining why. A promise, a programme in place and a measured outcome receive different scores.
| Score | Basis | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| 0/100 | Extreme adverse evidence | Credible evidence of extreme, continuing harm in the assessed scope, without an effective response. |
| 20/100 | Material adverse evidence | A documented material adverse outcome dominates the evidence in the assessed scope. |
| 40/100 | Commitment or mixed evidence | A specific relevant commitment is documented, or material contrary evidence limits credit for a positive practice. The company-specific explanation identifies which applies. |
| 60/100 | Implemented support | A relevant practice or support programme is operating. Reach or implementation is documented; a positive human outcome is not established. |
| 80/100 | Measured positive outcome | A relevant favourable outcome is quantified for a stated population and period. Self-reporting, selection and causal limits still apply. |
| 100/100 | Strongly corroborated outcome | Sustained favourable outcomes are independently corroborated with adequate population coverage and no material unresolved contrary evidence in the assessed scope. |
Every dimension needs a supported score, a finding and linked evidence. Review dates, source provenance and the extra requirements for higher scores must pass the published checks.
Missing evidence means no score, never zero. Incomplete or invalid reviews cannot produce a published score. The last valid edition may remain available as history.
What earns 80 or 100?
A score of 80 needs a named measure, numeric result and unit, population, observation period and source. The outcome must fit the dimension below.
| Dimension | Qualifying outcome |
|---|---|
| Wellbeing | A measured experience. Engagement or satisfaction must be labelled as an indirect measure. |
| Connection | A measured experience of belonging, inclusion or connection. |
| Vitality | A health or safety outcome, such as a documented injury-rate improvement. |
| Security | A benefit people actually received: pay, financial aid or a defined protection. |
| Agency | Completed education, recorded career progression or an exercised right to have a say, such as coverage under a ratified collective agreement. |
Spending, enrolment, participation and available benefits show implementation alone. Graduation can support agency, but does not prove better wellbeing or earnings. A feedback channel does not prove that concerns are resolved.
A score of 100 needs all of the following:
- A qualifying measured outcome.
- Supporting evidence from at least two independently controlled publishers.
- At least two observation periods ending a year or more apart.
- Evidence covering at least 70% of a defined eligible population.
- A documented selection method.
- No material unresolved contrary evidence within the assessed scope.
These are editorial requirements, not scientific certification.
When the evidence shows harm.
We weigh benefits and harms within the same population, activity and period. Mixed evidence scores 40. Material harm that dominates the finding scores 20. Extreme, continuing harm without an effective response scores 0. Positive programmes cannot cancel a dominating harm in that dimension.
Each decision explains what happened, the evidence and the response. We distinguish allegations, findings and settlements, and record the dates of ended outbreaks, terminated orders and verified remedies. Past harm is not automatically continuing harm; a promised remedy is not proof of resolution. A targeted search can miss harm. Finding none does not prove none occurred.
A simple calculation.
Overall score = (wellbeing + connection + vitality + security + agency) ÷ 5
Scores of 60/100, 60/100, 80/100, 40/100 and 60/100 average to 60/100. All five dimensions need sufficient evidence; missing values never become a neutral score or zero. Overall scores usually move in four-point steps. Small gaps may not be meaningful.
A balanced mix of company and external evidence.
Credible company disclosures may support individual indicators. Every new edition also needs substantive external checks that address its actual findings, population and evidence period. The review records source passages, publishers, contrary evidence and remaining gaps. A policy index verifies a disclosed commitment; it does not prove the policy works. A survey provider, union or programme partner may have a commercial or advocacy relationship, which must be disclosed.
A report can be published with explicitly unrated indicators. An overall score requires all fifteen indicators. Missing evidence is never zero and is never averaged away. These reports remain outside numeric rankings. Earlier editions keep their original scores, scope and sources.
Published does not mean certain.
Published means an assessment meets the evidence and review requirements. Confidence describes how strongly the evidence supports it. A published score can still have limited confidence.
| Confidence | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Limited evidence | Publication requirements are met, but stronger confidence requirements are missing. Company disclosures may support findings alongside substantive external checks. A targeted search, older observations or the absence of an independent human research review can still limit confidence. |
| Moderate evidence | An independent human review, a systematic search for contrary evidence, recent dated evidence, and independent evidence in at least three dimensions. |
| High evidence | All moderate-confidence requirements, plus independent evidence in all five dimensions. Each dimension also needs two independent publishers, periods ending at least a year apart, at least 70% coverage of a defined eligible population, a documented selection method and no material unresolved contrary evidence. |
A high score can have limited confidence; strong evidence can support a low score. The September 2026 assessments used AI assistance and have no independent human research review. Their evidence confidence remains limited.
Scores, colors and rankings.
A score is a number out of 100. Rank orders companies by score, highest first. Ties share a rank and skip the corresponding places after it; tied names appear alphabetically. Category filters recalculate ranks within that category. A name search preserves them.
- 0–39 Concerning
- 40–64 Mixed
- 65–79 Positive
- 80–100 Strong positive
Red covers 0–39, amber 40–64, blue 65–79 and green 80–100. Colors help you read scores; they are separate from the scoring rules. Crossing a color boundary does not prove a meaningful difference.
Confidence is shown separately. Blue and green scores can have limited confidence. Gray means no current published score.
Sources and their dates.
Findings link to the public company reports, benefit and supplier policies, regulator records, research or external evaluations used. Sources are labelled company-controlled, independent or independence not established. Different websites with the same publisher do not provide independent corroboration.
The date we check a source is separate from the period it describes. Checks must fall within 30 days of the full review. Evidence older than two years needs a specific reason for inclusion. Unknown observation dates stay unknown. Reopening an old report does not make it current.
We examine funding, survey selection, eligibility, reporting boundaries and corporate changes. New reviews seek representative worker and customer evidence, comparable health and injury measures, adequate-pay evidence, progression, independent evaluations and regulator follow-up. A company disclosure is not independent verification.
Scope, corrections and change history.
Workforce, supplier and education-programme assessments cover different people. A brand does not inherit its parent’s score. Employees do not represent every contractor, customer or franchise worker. Averages can hide unequal experiences; disclosure quality and evidence selection also affect the result.
Use the correction link on any assessment. Include the company, dimension, source, period and people affected. Each new edition keeps its evidence and review dates, names the methodology, explains changes and links to the previous edition. Corrections may change the score, confidence or scope.
Changes to weights or scoring rules require a new published methodology. Community proposals follow the same process; they do not silently change existing scores.
Methodological references.
Our approach to documenting combined scores and uncertainty draws on the OECD handbook on constructing composite indicators. Our approach to balanced, traceable reporting also draws on GRI 1: Foundation 2021. Our dimensions, weights, score levels and thresholds are editorial choices. These references do not certify or validate our model.
Scoring standard v1.0 · Published September 14, 2026.
Explore brands →