Scoring Methodology
This page explains how every HIP Score is produced. Transparency about methodology is a core part of what makes a rating credible — and it is our strongest defence if a score is ever questioned.
Current version: 1.3 · Effective April 2026
What the HIP Score measures
The HIP Score (Human Impact Profile Score) is a material resilience and sustainability rating, not a carbon footprint or general environmental endorsement. It assesses seven dimensions related to materials, supply chain, and end-of-life characteristics. See the About page for a full summary.
How the score is calculated
Step 1 — Score each dimension independently
Each of the seven dimensions is assessed separately using a structured scoring rubric — a set of written criteria for each score band (0–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, 9–10). The rubric for each dimension is defined in methodology.yaml (link below).
Step 2 — Normalise the Regenerative Index
The RI uses a scale of −10 to +10. Before weighting, it is normalised to 0–10 using:
RI Normalised = (RI Raw + 10) ÷ 2
This maps −10 → 0, 0 → 5, +10 → 10.
Step 3 — Calculate the weighted HIP Score
HIP Score = (MSI × 0.20) + (SCR × 0.18) + (RC × 0.18) + (R × 0.13) + (SEI × 0.08) + (PL × 0.08) + (RI_norm × 0.15)
The result is rounded to one decimal place.
Dimension weights
| Code | Dimension | Weight | Scale |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSI | Material Scarcity Index | 20% | 0–10 |
| SCR | Supply Chain Risk | 18% | 0–10 |
| RC | Recyclability & Circularity | 18% | 0–10 |
| R | Repairability | 13% | 0–10 |
| SEI | Social & Environmental Impact | 8% | 0–10 |
| PL | Product Longevity | 8% | 0–10 |
| RI | Regenerative Index | 15% | −10 to +10 * |
* Normalised to 0–10 before weighting using the formula above.
HIP Mark tiers
The HIP Mark is awarded when the HIP Score meets a minimum threshold:
| Tier | Minimum HIP Score | RI Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| HIP Mark Standard | 6.0 | None |
| HIP Mark Silver | 7.5 | None |
| HIP Mark Gold | 9.0 | RI raw ≥ +6.0 (Regenerative) |
Products scoring below 6.0 receive a HIP Score on the rating page but do not carry the HIP Mark.
Manufacturers holding a current verified rating and signed licence may display the HIP Mark. See the Brand Guidelines for visual standards, permitted usage, and licensing requirements.
Generic vs verified ratings
Category (generic) ratings are produced using publicly available data only. They rate a product category — not a specific named product — and apply conservative assumptions wherever data is missing. The result is an honest baseline for the category.
Verified ratings are produced using data submitted by the manufacturer through the Resourcehip submission form. Submitted data replaces the conservative category defaults. Scores above 5 on the Social & Environmental Impact dimension require third-party audit evidence — self-reported claims alone cannot exceed 5.
Where a verified rating uses a category default for a dimension (because no specific data was submitted for that dimension), this is clearly noted as an improvement opportunity on the rating page.
The AI scoring pipeline
Ratings are produced using a local AI pipeline running on Resourcehip's own hardware using Ollama. No product data is sent to external cloud AI services.
| Component | Role |
|---|---|
| Model — qwen3.5:35b | Handles all scoring (all 7 dimensions) and all consumer prose generation |
| Temperature | 0.1 — produces consistent, reproducible outputs |
| Human review | Every rating reviewed and approved before publication |
No rating is ever published automatically without human sign-off.
Data sources
The following public data sources are used across ratings. Each rating page lists the specific sources used for that assessment.
| Source | Used for |
|---|---|
| USGS Mineral Resources Program | Global reserve estimates and supply-risk designations |
| EU Critical Raw Materials List (2023) | EU high-importance, high-risk material designations |
| World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators | Country political stability scores for supply chain risk |
| iFixit Repairability Database | Standardised repairability scores for consumer products |
| Ellen MacArthur Foundation | Circular economy metrics and design-for-circularity benchmarks |
| UK WRAP | UK material recycling rates and kerbside collection data |
| Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) | Verified regenerative agricultural certifications |
All data sources are public domain or published under open data licences. Attribution is shown on each rating page.
Conservative by design
Where data is missing, the pipeline uses the most conservative reasonable assumption — not the most optimistic. This protects the integrity of the rating and creates a genuine incentive for manufacturers to submit better data. A verified rating with real data almost always scores higher than the category default.
Methodology version history
| Version | Date | Key changes |
|---|---|---|
| 1.3 | April 2026 | Clarified RI scoring criteria; updated Depleting vs Extractive band definitions and added worked examples to the scoring rubric. |
| 1.1 | March 2026 | Added Regenerative Index (RI) as seventh dimension. Adjusted weights: MSI 20%, SCR 18%, RC 18%, R 13%, SEI 8%, PL 8%, RI 15%. |
| 1.0 | February 2026 | Initial six-dimension methodology. |
Standards alignment
ISO 14024:2026 (Type I Ecolabels)
HIP is ISO 14024-informed, not ISO-certified. Resourcehip is building toward certification: Phase 2 (Q4 2026–2028) adds independent peer review, a Criteria Board, and third-party audit.
ISO 14024:2026 is the international standard for Type I environmental labels — independent, multi-criteria ecolabels based on lifecycle assessment. The HIP methodology was designed with these principles in mind.
What HIP aligns with:
| ISO 14024 Pillar | HIP implementation |
|---|---|
| Transparency | Methodology published under CC BY-NC 4.0; all scoring rubrics and data sources are public |
| Multi-criteria assessment | Seven dimensions covering materials, supply chain, circularity, repairability, social impact, longevity, and regenerative potential |
| Science-based criteria | Rubrics cite peer-reviewed sources (OECD, ILO, RBA, USGS, BEUC) and established databases (iFixit, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, UK WRAP) |
What HIP does not yet claim:
| ISO 14024 Requirement | Current position |
|---|---|
| Independent governance board | HIP is currently founder-led. ISO 14024 requires a multi-stakeholder board including manufacturers, NGOs, government, and academia |
| Third-party audit | The HUMAN_REVIEW_CHECKLIST is an internal verification gate. ISO 14024 requires an independent external auditor |
| LCA-derived scores for all dimensions | RC, R, and RI are design-criteria dimensions that inform LCA outcomes; MSI and SCR are LCA-adjacent. Full ISO 14040/44 compliance is a Phase 2 goal |
The Regenerative Index (RI) is a proprietary Resourcehip extension — there is no direct equivalent in ISO 14024 — and reflects our view that material resilience must account for regenerative potential, not only harm reduction.
Phase 2 certification roadmap:
| Milestone | Target |
|---|---|
| Academic and practitioner peer review | Q4 2026 |
| Criteria Board formation | Q1 2027 |
| Third-party audit engagement | Q2–Q3 2027 |
| ISO 14024 formal certification path | 2027–2028 |
Licence and source
The HIP Score methodology is published under Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 — free to share and adapt for non-commercial purposes with attribution to Resourcehip.
The authoritative source file is methodology.yaml, maintained in the Resourcehip pipeline repository.
The HIP Mark logo and Resourcehip brand are proprietary and may not be used without a licence.
Dispute a rating
If you believe a rating contains an error, see the Dispute a Rating page for the review process.