Home›Scoring methodology

How we score

Scoring methodology

Neptune Moon scores food products across four impact zones, each drawing on public data sources and third-party audits. Every score is reproducible — we don't use proprietary black-box models or accept payment from brands.

What we measure — and what we don't

Tools like Open Food Facts and Yuka tell you what's in a product — nutrition facts, additives, processing level. That's useful, and we incorporate it as one of four pillars.

What they don't tell you is who made it, who owns the brand, what their labor record looks like, or how honest they are about their supply chain. That's the gap Neptune Moon fills.

The composite score

Each product receives a score from 0–100 across four pillars. The composite score is an equally-weighted average of the four pillar scores unless you adjust the weights yourself in your account settings.

Composite = (Environmental + Human cost + Product quality + Transparency) ÷ 4

Scores are percentile-normalized within each category, so a score of 75 means the product outperforms 75% of products in the same category on that pillar.

Environmental

25% of composite

How the brand sources, manufactures, and packages its products — and what that costs the planet.

Organic certification — USDA Organic, EU Organic, or equivalent third-party verified

Packaging — Recyclable, compostable, or minimal packaging vs. single-use plastic

Carbon footprint — Published emissions data, Science Based Targets, or net-zero commitments

Land use & biodiversity — Deforestation-free sourcing, Rainforest Alliance, or equivalent

Supply chain proximity — Direct sourcing vs. commodity brokers; distance from farm to facility

Sources:Rainforest Alliance audit databaseUSDA Organic registryCompany sustainability reportsCDP climate disclosures

Human cost

25% of composite

What the people behind the product experience — from farm workers to factory employees.

Fair trade certification — Fairtrade International, Fair Trade USA, or Direct Trade verified

Know The Chain benchmark — Annual forced labor and supply chain transparency benchmark score

Living wage commitment — Publicly committed to paying living wages across supply chain

Worker rights record — Labor violations, union relations, ILO convention compliance

Direct farmer relationships — Named sourcing partners vs. anonymous commodity supply chains

Sources:Know The Chain benchmarkFairtrade International registryBusiness & Human Rights Resource CentreCompany annual reports

Product quality

25% of composite

What is actually in the product — ingredients, additives, processing level, and nutritional profile.

Ingredient quality — Whole food ingredients vs. refined, fractionated, or synthetic

Additives & preservatives — EWG Food Scores rating; presence of artificial dyes, emulsifiers

NOVA processing level — NOVA 1–4 classification; ultra-processed ingredients flagged

Sugar & sodium — Added sugar and sodium per serving relative to category average

Allergen transparency — Clear labeling of major allergens; cross-contamination disclosures

Sources:Open Food FactsEWG Food ScoresNOVA classification (Monteiro et al.)USDA FoodData Central

Transparency

25% of composite

How openly the brand communicates about what it does — sourcing, pricing, practices, and ownership.

Sourcing disclosure — Named farms, cooperatives, or origin countries published

Pricing transparency — Farm-gate or producer prices published; living income reference prices

Certification verification — Certifications independently audited and publicly verifiable

Ownership clarity — Clear disclosure of parent company and corporate structure

Impact reporting — Annual impact or sustainability report with audited metrics

Sources:Company websitesSEC filings & ownership registriesCertification body registriesGRI sustainability disclosures

Corporate structure — context, not a score

Every product page shows the brand's ownership chain — who makes it, and who owns them. This is displayed as context rather than a score modifier.

The reason it matters: when a brand is owned by a multinational conglomerate, supply chain decisions, lobbying positions, and labor practices are shaped by the parent — not just the brand team.

Independent

Privately owned by founders or a small group, with no parent conglomerate. Typically highest accountability for supply chain decisions.

Mid-market

Acquired by or operating within a mid-size company. Some supply chain influence retained; accountability varies.

Large

Owned by a large corporation with significant market share. Supply chain decisions made at distance from brand level.

Multinational

Subsidiary of a global conglomerate (e.g. Nestlé, Unilever, PepsiCo). Widest gap between brand identity and corporate behavior.

Data confidence

Each product profile shows a data confidence indicator reflecting how complete the underlying data is. We don't manufacture scores from thin air — if data is sparse, the score is marked accordingly.

High

80%+ of indicators have verified third-party data. Score is reliable.

Medium

50–79% of indicators have verified data. Some estimates used.

Low

Under 50% verified. Score reflects best available data; treat with caution.

What we don't do

✕Accept payment from brands to improve or feature their scores

✕Use undisclosed proprietary weighting or black-box models

✕Carry affiliate relationships that influence ranking order

✕Fabricate scores when data is unavailable — we flag gaps instead

✕Apply score modifiers based on brand size or ownership without data support