Two Ratings, Same Methodology
Every rating on Resourcehip is one of two types. They use the same seven-dimension methodology, the same scoring rubric, and the same final calculation — but they differ in what data they are based on.
- Generic ratings are produced from public data only, with conservative defaults wherever data is missing. They rate the product category, not a specific named product.
- Verified ratings are produced from data submitted by the manufacturer through the submission form. Submitted data replaces the conservative defaults. They rate a specific evidenced product at a specific point in time.
The difference matters because most categories show a substantial gap between the two scores. That gap — between the conservative baseline and what a fully evidenced submission can demonstrate — is the headroom in the category. It is also the space within which a manufacturer can credibly differentiate.
A Worked Example: Smartphones
The smartphone category is one of the harder ones to rate well, so it makes a useful worked example. The numbers below are from the live ratings.
Generic baseline:
- HIP Score: 1.8 / 10
- Regenerative Index: −7.0 (Depleting)
- HIP Mark: none
The generic baseline assumes the typical mass-market device: glued construction, no spare parts, sealed lithium-ion battery, no take-back scheme, no audited supply chain, no recycled content disclosure. These are not assumptions made out of pessimism — they are the conservative defaults applied wherever a manufacturer has not submitted contrary evidence.
Verified ceiling:
- HIP Score: 6.4 / 10
- Regenerative Index: −2.0 (Extractive)
- HIP Mark: Standard
The verified ceiling is what the same methodology produces when a manufacturer can show: 55% recycled content, screw-fastened construction with a 10-year spare-parts commitment, a verified take-back scheme recovering 70% of material, RBA-audited and ISO-14001-certified manufacturing, an 8-year software-support window, and a 5-year warranty.
Same methodology. Same dimensions. Same rubric. The score differs by 4.6 HIP points and 5 RI bands because the inputs differ.
That gap — 1.8 → 6.4 — is the smartphone category headroom. It is also, candidly, the entire commercial argument behind verified ratings: a manufacturer with the evidence can demonstrate a step-change difference from the generic default, and the rating reflects that difference honestly.
Why the Gap Is Always Big
In every category we rate, generic baselines sit substantially below verified ceilings. This is not an accident or a marketing tactic; it follows directly from how the methodology handles missing data.
The pipeline applies conservative defaults wherever a field is unspecified. If a manufacturer does not state recycled-content percentage, the rubric assumes 0%. If supply-chain due diligence is not documented, the rubric assumes none. If take-back is not explicitly named, the rubric assumes absent. If a service manual is not public, the rubric assumes there isn't one.
These are not pessimistic guesses. They are the most conservative reasonable assumptions consistent with the publicly available data on the category. When a manufacturer submits actual evidence, those defaults are replaced with the real numbers. The score moves accordingly.
This design has three consequences:
- There is no incentive to submit selectively. A manufacturer cannot fix one dimension and leave the others under conservative defaults to fake a score. The defaults still apply where evidence is missing, so the rating reflects exactly what was submitted.
- Verified ratings tend to be substantially higher than generic baselines — because they almost always replace at least one default with real evidence.
- The conservative-default design protects the integrity of the rating. A score with no submitted data is a score that cannot be lower than reality; it can only be more conservative. That asymmetry is intentional.
The Audit Floor
One specific design choice deserves separate mention. Scores above 5 on the Social and Environmental Impact (SEI) dimension cannot be earned through manufacturer self-reporting. They require third-party audit evidence — RBA audits, ISO 14001 certifications, modern-slavery statements, or equivalent independently verifiable documentation.
This is the one dimension where good intentions are not enough. A manufacturer can score up to 5 on SEI through self-reported claims; the next 5 points require audit evidence. The rationale is direct: labour and environmental practices are precisely the area where self-reporting is most prone to error, and where the cost of being wrong is highest.
A verified rating that hits the upper bands of SEI is therefore a meaningful signal. It says, specifically, that an independent body has reviewed and certified the relevant manufacturing practices.
What Submitting Evidence Looks Like
The submission form is the formal route. The data we ask for falls into seven groups, one per HIP dimension — material composition, recycled content, supply countries and audits, repair documentation, environmental certifications, warranty and design life, and end-of-life recovery evidence.
For each field, two things matter:
- A specific value. Not "high recycled content" — 82% recycled stainless steel. Not "extended warranty" — 5-year limited warranty.
- The source. Either a public document (URL), a private document (we will accept under NDA), or an audit certificate (we will need a copy).
Submissions are assessed by a human reviewer before any verified rating is published. No rating is generated automatically.
When a Verified Rating Is Worth the Effort
Three signals suggest a verified rating is the right move for a manufacturer:
- The product genuinely outperforms the category default on multiple dimensions, and that outperformance is documented internally even if it is not yet public.
- The product would benefit from earning the HIP Mark — which is only available on verified ratings, and which can be displayed on packaging and marketing under licence.
- The category baseline is being used as a competitive yardstick by buyers who would value the difference if they could see it.
The category headroom story is not abstract. For the smartphone example above, a manufacturer earning a verified ceiling rating moves their public score from 1.8 to 6.4 and earns the Standard HIP Mark. That is a substantive shift, and it costs the manufacturer nothing beyond the evidence they already have.
What the Generic Rating Is For
The generic rating exists for two reasons:
- Buyers can use it before any manufacturer in a category has submitted. The category page tells a buyer what the baseline assumption is and what the methodology rewards. That is useful even if no specific product has yet earned a verified rating.
- It establishes a defensible default. If a manufacturer disputes their absence from the rating set, the generic rating tells them exactly what they would inherit by not submitting — and exactly what they would gain by submitting evidence.
Most categories on the site currently show only the generic rating. As manufacturers submit evidence, verified ratings will appear alongside the category baseline, and the gap between them will become visible at a glance.
Where to Go From Here
- The HIP Score explainer for how the seven dimensions combine into a single number.
- The Regenerative Index explainer for the dimension where negative scores are valid.
- The methodology reference page for the full rubric and worked examples.
- The submission form — for manufacturers ready to move from a generic rating to a verified one.
Methodology and edits by Chris Bowness; assistive AI used for drafting.