Methodology
How Prasine Index assesses EU corporate sustainability claims — pipeline architecture, data sources, verdict definitions, and scoring logic.
Pipeline architecture
Each assessment runs a 7-agent pipeline. Every agent has a typed Pydantic contract at input and output — no unvalidated state crosses a boundary.
| # | Agent | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Discovery | Fetches the claim source URL and extracts all sustainability assertions from the page. Filters to substantive environmental claims — ignores boilerplate and navigation copy. |
| 2 | Extraction | Structures each claim as a typed record: claim text, category (emissions, target, process, certification, offsetting), and source attribution. |
| 3 | Context | Retrieves company-level context: sector, CSRD obligation status, SIC code, prior enforcement history, and known lobbying ratings. Sets the baseline for scoring. |
| 4 | Verification | Parallel fan-out across all 22 data sources. Each source returns typed Evidence records with a confidence value and a URL. Uses LangGraph for managed parallelism — the only place a framework is used. |
| 5 | Lobbying | Dedicated pass for influence data: LobbyMap rating, EU Transparency Register registration, GOGEL/GOGET extraction presence. Lobbying contradiction is an independent scoring trigger. |
| 6 | Judge | Scores each claim 0–100. Confidence-weighted aggregate across all evidence items. Assigns verdict tier. Flags data gaps where regulatory ground truth is absent. |
| 7 | Report | Writes the full assessment: evidence chain with citations, dimensional scoring table, key finding, data gaps, methodology note, and trace ID for reproducibility. |
The pipeline is single-threaded at the assessment level — one company at a time. Verification runs all 22 sources in parallel within that run. Claims within a company are scored sequentially with shared context.
Data sources
Every evidence item in a Prasine report is drawn from one of these 22 EU open data sources. No paywalled databases. No hallucinated citations — every source is fetched at run time and the URL is included in the evidence record.
| Source | What it provides |
|---|---|
| EU ETS | Verified installation-level CO₂ emissions from the EU Emissions Trading System. Ground truth for industrial emitters obligated under ETS. |
| E-PRTR | European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register — facility-level pollution data across EU member states. |
| EDGAR (JRC) | EU Joint Research Centre gridded GHG emissions — used where ETS coverage is absent. |
| EEA National Inventories | European Environment Agency country-level GHG inventories. Sector-level emissions trends. |
| Eurostat | EU statistical office — energy mix, production volumes, and sector emissions aggregates. |
| Climate TRACE | Independent satellite-derived emissions estimates. Used to cross-check self-reported figures. |
| SBTi | Science Based Targets initiative — whether the company has a validated, approved, or committed net-zero or 1.5°C target. |
| TPI (Transition Pathway Initiative) | Independent assessment of company management quality on climate transition. Tracks emissions performance vs. sector benchmarks. |
| CA100+ | Climate Action 100+ benchmark — net-zero alignment score, disclosure quality, and short-term target setting. |
| CDP | Carbon Disclosure Project open dataset — company-disclosed emissions, targets, and climate governance data. |
| LobbyMap | InfluenceMap corporate climate lobbying scores. The single strongest independent CONFIRMED trigger: a D or D+ rating demonstrates active obstruction of climate policy. |
| EU Transparency Register | Confirms whether the company is a registered EU lobbyist and its declared lobbying expenditure. |
| EUR-Lex | EU legislative database — cited when a claim conflicts with current or forthcoming EU law (CSRD, Green Claims Directive, EmpCo Directive, EU Taxonomy). |
| Enforcement rulings | National advertising authority and regulatory rulings (ASA UK, Reklamnämnden SE, ACM NL, others). Prior violations are scored as independent evidence. |
| GOGEL | Global Oil and Gas Exit List — upstream oil and gas expansion plans. Active expansion contradicts credible net-zero claims. |
| GOGET | Global Oil and Gas Extraction Tracker — production volumes and new field approvals. |
| Global Coal Exit List (GCEL) | Coal power and mining exposure. Active coal expansion is incompatible with Paris-aligned claims. |
| Global Coal Plant Tracker (GCPT) | Plant-level coal capacity in operation and under construction. |
| Europe Gas Tracker (EGT) | Gas infrastructure under development — pipelines, LNG terminals, gas plants. New gas locks contradict transition claims. |
| Banking on Climate Chaos | Fossil fuel financing by major banks — relevant for financial sector claims and credibility of transition pledges. |
| EU Innovation Fund | EU-funded decarbonisation grants. Receipt of transition funding is contextual evidence, not a verdict trigger. |
| Source document | The claim's own source URL is fetched and analysed — the claim text, its context, and any referenced commitments are extracted directly. |
Scoring
Each claim receives a score from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate stronger evidence of greenwashing. The score is a confidence-weighted aggregate across all evidence items retrieved for that claim.
| Score | Verdict | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| 0 – 20 | Substantiated | Available evidence supports the claim. No significant contradicting data found across the 22 sources. The claim is defensible under current EU standards. |
| 21 – 40 | Unverifiable | Insufficient public regulatory data to verify or refute the claim. The claim may be accurate, but cannot be independently confirmed through EU open data. |
| 41 – 60 | Misleading | Evidence contradicts the claim, but not conclusively. The claim overstates, omits material context, or uses framing inconsistent with the underlying data. |
| 61 – 80 | Likely greenwashing | Strong contradicting evidence from multiple sources. The claim conflicts with regulatory data, lobbying conduct, or target credibility in ways that are difficult to reconcile. |
| 81 – 100 | Confirmed greenwashing | Definitive contradicting evidence. One or more confirmed triggers apply (see below). The claim cannot be reconciled with independently verified facts. |
Confirmed triggers
Any of the following, if confirmed, triggers CONFIRMED status regardless of other evidence:
| Trigger | Logic |
|---|---|
| LobbyMap D or D+ | An "Obstructive" or "Highly Obstructive" climate lobbying rating means the company actively opposes or delays the climate legislation its own green claims depend on. Internal contradiction at the conduct level. |
| Prior enforcement ruling | A national advertising authority or regulatory body has ruled a similar or identical claim from this company misleading. Establishes pattern and prior notice. |
| Active fossil fuel expansion | Company has upstream oil, gas, or coal expansion planned or underway (per GOGEL/GOGET/GCEL/GCPT) while making Paris-aligned or net-zero claims. Structural contradiction between capital allocation and stated direction. |
| Offsetting basis | Net-zero or carbon-neutral claim relies primarily on carbon offsetting, which is expressly excluded from acceptable net-zero bases under the EmpCo Directive (EU 2024/825) and the EU Taxonomy. |
| No SBTi target + net-zero claim | Company claims net-zero alignment with no approved, committed, or validated SBTi target. No credible independent verification pathway exists. |
| Verified emissions gap | Independent satellite or regulatory emissions estimates significantly exceed company-disclosed figures, and the discrepancy is material to the claim being assessed. |
Multi-claim assessments produce a company score from the three highest-scoring claims (confidence-weighted), floored at the bottom of the worst claim's verdict band — a confirmed finding cannot be averaged away by milder claims. The company-level verdict is always derived from this final score, so score and verdict can never disagree.
What this is and isn't
Not a legal determination
A Prasine Index assessment is an evidence-based research output, not a legal opinion. It identifies public data that contradicts a company's stated claims. It does not constitute legal advice, and a CONFIRMED verdict does not mean the company is in breach of law — it means the evidence record is inconsistent with the claim at a level that warrants further scrutiny.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Reports are generated by a multi-agent pipeline using Claude (Anthropic). The model synthesises and scores evidence — it does not generate or fabricate data. Every source cited in a report was fetched and retrieved at run time. |
| Citations | Every evidence item includes a source URL, a confidence value (0.0–1.0), and a supports/contradicts/context classification. Evidence items with no retrievable URL are flagged as unverifiable and do not increase the score. |
| Data gaps | Every assessment discloses where regulatory ground truth is absent — when a company is not in a mandatory database, when data is paywalled, or when disclosure is incomplete. Data gaps are listed explicitly, not silently omitted. |
| Trace ID | Each report includes a trace ID: a hash of the pipeline run. The same company and claim URL run through the same pipeline version will produce an identical trace ID, confirming reproducibility. |
| Scope | Current coverage is limited to environmental (E) claims. Social (S) and governance (G) claims are outside scope. CSRD ESRS E1 (climate change) is the primary lens. |
| Paywalled sources | Prasine does not access paywalled databases. Where a relevant source requires registration or payment (GOGEL full dataset, some regulatory portals), this is disclosed in the data gaps section. |
Questions about the methodology, a specific scoring decision, or how Prasine could support your work? Get in touch.