Public, sourced reports of ESG and reputational controversies. We track context so you can decide — unverified claims don't deduct from QuickRatey scores.
A controversy is a documented dispute about how a brand behaves — labour conditions, environmental claims, data handling, marketing accuracy or governance. It is not the same as a product defect, which belongs in our recall feed. Because reputational claims are easy to weaponise, every entry has to clear the same four checks before it goes live.
A regulator filing, court document, audit report, investigative report from an established outlet, or the brand's own statement. Aggregator posts and viral threads do not qualify on their own.
The entry must name what happened, when it happened, and which part of the business was involved. Vague accusations are rejected.
Where a brand has publicly responded, disputed the claim or published a remediation plan, that response is summarised in the same entry.
We grade the scale and evidence strength rather than the outrage. Unverified allegations are recorded for context but never deduct from a QuickRatey score.
| Severity | Evidence bar | Typical examples | Score effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | Regulator action, court ruling, or a failed third-party audit | Forced-labour findings, proven greenwashing penalties, major safety negligence | Material deduction to Brand & Trust until remediated |
| Medium | Credible investigative reporting or a documented pattern of complaints | Disputed sustainability claims, supplier disputes, repeated support failures | Small deduction, reviewed again at the next quarterly pass |
| Low | Single documented incident with a published brand response | One-off marketing overstatement, isolated packaging claim withdrawn | Context only — no deduction |
Large brands generate more coverage simply because more people watch them. Compare the severity and recency of entries, not the raw count.
A brand that published an audit, changed a supplier and disclosed the outcome is a lower risk than a silent brand with one old allegation.
Private or newly launched brands may have no entries because nobody has investigated them yet, not because they behave better.
Related: our scoring methodology, transparency report, and the full brands directory.
A documented dispute about how a company behaves rather than how a product performs — labour conditions, environmental or sustainability claims, governance, marketing accuracy, data handling or supplier practices. Physical product defects are tracked separately in our recall feed.
Every entry needs a primary source such as a regulator filing, court document, audit, established investigative report or the brand's own statement, plus a specific date and a named part of the business. Where the brand has responded publicly, that response is summarised alongside the claim.
Only verified, high or medium severity entries affect the Brand & Trust pillar, which is 20% of the default composite score. Low-severity and unverified items are shown for context and deduct nothing.
Not for being unflattering, but factual errors are corrected quickly and outdated entries are marked as resolved once remediation is documented. Send evidence to our corrections address and we review it within seven days.
Coverage volume follows company size and media attention. Compare severity, recency and whether the issue was resolved, rather than counting entries — a small brand with no entries may simply never have been investigated.
New reports are reviewed continuously and existing entries are re-checked at least quarterly, alongside the Brand & Trust review cycle described in our methodology.