Transparency score: how it is calculated, and why it differs from a label

The transparency score measures what a producer exposes of their activity, not the quality of that activity itself — a distinction that often escapes anyone discovering the score for the first time. This guide explains how it is calculated and its limits, so you can use it wisely rather than as a value judgement.

The four components of the calculation, and what counts as “full”

The score runs from 0 to 100. We publish the exact thresholds here, because a score whose formula cannot be known cannot be challenged — and a method that cannot be challenged is a method you are asked to take on trust.

| Component | Weight | What gives the maximum | |---|---|---| | Signed batches over 12 months | 30% | 12 signed batches over the year, i.e. one a month on average. Beyond that, the component is full. | | Valid certifications | 30% | 3 active certifications. An expired certification does not merely stop counting: it deducts. | | Profile completeness | 20% | 7 fields filled in: business name, description of more than 40 characters, region, products, points of sale, logo, banner. | | Recency of activity | 20% | Under 30 days since the last record. Beyond that, the component decreases linearly and reaches zero at 180 days. |

The displayed tiers are fixed too: platinum from 85, gold at 70, silver at 50, bronze at 25, and “not rated” below that.

Three consequences can be read directly from this table, and they often surprise:

• A perfect profile caps out at 20%. Filling in your listing is the quickest and least rewarding step. Two thirds of the score concern recorded activity.
• Twelve batches are enough. This is not a volume score: a producer who signs one batch a month gets as much, on this component, as an operator who signs a thousand.
• The score declines on its own. Without a new record, the recency component falls to zero in six months — that is 20 points lost without anything having changed in the farm’s practice.

What the score really measures

The transparency score answers a single question: how much verifiable information does this producer make accessible? It does not answer “is this producer reliable” or “is this product of good quality” — two different questions, for which other indicators exist (notably the trust index, which aggregates different signals).

Why an irreproachable producer can show a low score

A producer who works scrupulously but does not record their batches, does not fill in their profile or has not recently updated their certifications gets a low score — not because their practice is poor, but because it remains invisible to the measurement. This is a deliberate design choice: the score is about disclosure, not an assessment of the practice itself, which it has no means of evaluating directly.

How to raise it, in order of impact

1. Record and sign your batches regularly — the heaviest component (30%) and the one that most directly reflects real, recent activity.
2. Keep your certifications up to date — an expired certification removes its weight from the score, even if it was valid throughout the previous year.
3. Complete your profile — a quicker gain to obtain, but with a more limited weight (20%) than the first two levers.
4. Keep your activity recent — a one-off record followed by a long period of inactivity makes this component decline over time, even if the profile otherwise remains complete.

What the score does not measure

• The taste or nutritional quality of the product.
• Regulatory compliance in the strict sense — a producer can be fully compliant without being very active on the platform.
• The size or age of the business — a small, recent producer can show a score as high as a large, established group, if they document as much.

Common mistakes

• Using the score as the sole supplier-selection criterion without cross-checking it against other information — it measures disclosure, not intrinsic quality.
• Interpreting a low score as an automatic warning sign, when it may simply reflect a profile that has not been updated much.
• Neglecting recency in the belief that a profile, once well filled in, stays that way indefinitely.

Checklist for a producer who wants to improve

1. Count your signed batches over a rolling twelve months: the target is 12, no more.
2. Check that no displayed certification has expired — and aim for 3 active certifications.
3. Complete any of the 7 profile fields left empty.
4. Check the date of the last record: beyond 30 days, the recency component has started to decrease; at 180 days, it is worth zero.
5. Keep up regular activity rather than one-off peaks followed by long pauses.

Why we publish the formula

This guide gives weightings, thresholds and tiers rather than a qualitative description, and that is deliberate. A score summarises, so it decides on behalf of the reader: it decides what counts, and by how much. These trade-offs do not disappear because they are calculated — they merely change hands.

The only honest counterpart is to make the method knowable: the weightings live in named constants, pinned by tests — a weight cannot be changed without changing the test that attests it — and any change to the formula increments its method label, so that a score calculated last year remains readable with last year’s method.

That is also why this score does not claim to be “quality”. It measures one narrow, named thing: what is exposed and verifiable.