The Ethical Endurance Framework explained — what we assess, how we score, and what the ratings mean.

Why this framework exists

If you’ve ever tried to work out whether a sports brand is genuinely sustainable or just good at marketing, you already know the problem. The language of sustainability has been so thoroughly co-opted that a green leaf on the label tells you almost nothing. Recycled polyester sounds great until you learn about microplastic shedding. Carbon neutral can mean a company has fundamentally restructured its operations — or that it’s bought some cheap offsets and carried on as normal.

Most of us don’t have time to read annual sustainability reports, cross-reference certifications, or decode supply chain audits. We’re fitting training around jobs and families. The Ethical Endurance Framework exists to do that work so you don’t have to — and to present the results in a way that’s honest, structured, and useful.

What we assess

Every brand is scored out of 100 across six categories. Five are universal — they apply to every brand regardless of what it sells. The sixth is specific to the product type: clothing, nutrition, or equipment. Together, these categories cover the full picture of a brand’s ethical and environmental performance.

Each category contains multiple sub-criteria with defined scoring thresholds. Evidence is drawn from publicly available sources: sustainability reports, third-party certifications, regulatory filings, and published company data. Where public information is insufficient, brands are contacted directly through a structured enquiry process.

How the scoring works

Within each category, sub-criteria are scored on defined scales with clear thresholds. Higher scores require progressively stronger evidence — moving from general commitments through to independently verified, quantified data. Vague claims without supporting evidence do not attract points. A score of zero means no evidence was found.

Scores are totalled to produce a rating out of 100, which maps to one of four rating bands:

The language is deliberately constructive. No brand is labelled as ‘failing’ — the framework assesses where a brand is on a journey, not whether it is good or bad. A ‘Developing’ rating means there is limited public evidence of ethical practice, not that the brand is doing nothing. It may simply not be reporting what it does.

Product-specific criteria

The sixth scoring category is tailored to the product type. Clothing assessments examine material sourcing, design for longevity, and microplastic mitigation. Nutrition assessments cover organic certification, batch testing standards, ingredient sourcing ethics, and the structural packaging challenges that are unique to sports nutrition. Equipment assessments — including sports technology such as GPS devices and smart trainers — address repairability, software longevity, end-of-life recycling programmes, and conflict mineral due diligence.

These product-specific criteria matter because the most significant ethical issues differ by category. The supply chain risks in a pair of cycling shorts are fundamentally different from those in a GPS watch or a box of energy gels. A single set of criteria would miss those differences.

Independence and process

No brand pays to be assessed. No brand pays to be featured. Scores are determined solely by the framework, and the methodology follows the clear process set out here so that any reader can understand how a rating was reached. Every assessment cites its evidence sources.

Before any brand profile is published, the brand is given the opportunity to review the assessment for factual accuracy and to provide additional evidence. This right-of-reply process is a matter of fairness, not editorial influence — it does not change the methodology or the scoring thresholds. It ensures brands are assessed on the best available evidence.

A note on smaller brands

Smaller brands often have less public reporting than multinational companies. This is a structural reality, not a failure of effort — a ten-person cycling clothing company does not have the same reporting infrastructure as a global corporation. The framework includes a proportionate assessment protocol for smaller brands, aligned with the same proportionality principles used by international sustainability standards including B Corp, SBTi, and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. This means smaller brands are assessed against appropriate evidence thresholds without lowering the scoring standards.

Our limitations

The framework is a tool for structured assessment, not a guarantee of a brand’s ethical performance. It is important that you understand what it can and cannot tell you.

We assess what brands report, not what they do behind closed doors. Much of the evidence used in assessments comes from information that brands publish about themselves. We verify this against third-party certifications, regulatory filings, and independent audits wherever possible, but self-reported data has inherent limitations. A brand that publishes a detailed sustainability report will always score higher on transparency than one that does not — even if the silent brand’s actual practices are comparable. The framework rewards disclosure, which means it has a structural bias toward brands that report well.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is evidence of opacity. When a brand provides no public information on a criterion, it scores zero. That does not necessarily mean it is performing badly — but it does mean it is not telling you anything, and that matters. If you cannot verify a claim, you cannot trust it.

The framework does not assess product performance. A high ethical score does not mean the product will make you faster, last longer, or taste better. Ethical Endurance assesses how responsibly a product is made, not how well it performs on the road or the trail. We will always be clear when a product’s performance characteristics are relevant to its ethical profile — for example, durability directly affects sustainability — but we do not conduct performance testing.

Scores are a snapshot, not a permanent verdict. Brands change. Certifications lapse. Supply chains shift. Assessments are dated and reflect the evidence available at the time of publication. We revisit and update assessments as new evidence emerges, but a score published today may not reflect a brand’s position in twelve months.

One person runs this platform. Ethical Endurance is a solo operation. The assessments are thorough and evidence-based, but they are conducted by one researcher, not a team. This means the volume of brands assessed is limited, and there is no internal peer review process. The published methodology and transparent scoring are the safeguards against this constraint — you can see exactly how every score was reached and challenge it if you disagree.

The full Ethical Endurance Framework (v1.2) is available on request. If you have questions about the methodology, or if you’re a brand that would like to understand how the assessment process works, get in touch.