Why a Sustainability Score Needs a Negative Range
Most consumer-product sustainability ratings tell you how a product compares against worse alternatives. They are scored from zero (bad) to ten (good), with the implicit suggestion that "good" means "less harmful than the baseline".
The Resourcehip Regenerative Index does something different. It scores from −10 to +10, with zero meaning neutral — neither depleting nor restoring the systems the product draws from. Negative numbers are valid. Positive numbers mean the product actively returns more than it takes.
That distinction matters because most of the consumer-products world sits on the negative side of the scale. A "less bad" product is still net-extractive. The Regenerative Index makes that visible by refusing to round the conversation up to "well, it is better than nothing".
The RI is one of the seven dimensions of the HIP Score, with a 15% weight in the final figure. The reference page at /methodology has the full rubric.
The Five Tiers
The Regenerative Index has five canonical band names. These names do not change. There is no "Transitioning" tier, no "Improving" tier, no "Approaching Regenerative" — those would be marketing concessions that hide the actual position on the scale. The bands are:
Depleting (−10 to −5)
The product relies entirely on virgin extraction with no recycled content, no take-back scheme, and no regenerative inputs. The system the product draws from gets smaller every time the product is made. This is where almost every consumer-electronics category baseline sits. Smartphones at category baseline score −7. Wireless earbuds at category baseline score −7. The kettle category baseline scores −7. The pattern is consistent because the baseline assumes mass-market commercial defaults, and mass-market commercial defaults are depleting.
Extractive (−5 to −1)
Partial recycled content, possibly a take-back scheme, but the net flow of material is still outward from the planet's stock. This is where most of the verified category ceilings currently sit. A smartphone with 55% recycled content + a verified take-back scheme + screw-fastened disassembly scores around −2. That is a real improvement on the category baseline; it is not yet regenerative.
The Extractive band is honest about what is there: better than depleting, not yet renewable. A manufacturer landing here has done genuine work; the rating reflects exactly that.
Renewable (0 to +3)
Substantial recycled content (over 50%) plus verified take-back and end-of-life recovery. The flow of material into and out of the product roughly balances. The product is closing the loop without yet replenishing it. No category we have rated currently sits here at ceiling.
Restorative (+3 to +6)
Closed-loop material recovery — the same material is recovered, processed, and returned to manufacturing within the same producer's system — combined with regenerative biological or agricultural inputs (Regenerative Organic Certified materials, certified low-impact forestry, sustainably-managed mineral recovery). The product actively contributes to the systems it depends on.
Regenerative (+6 to +10)
Restorative practices plus third-party certified ecosystem restoration evidence. This is the only band where claims about regenerative effects must be backed by independent audit. Not internal documentation, not a sustainability report — a published third-party certificate that says ecosystem function has measurably improved. Without that evidence, the highest score available is +5 (top of Restorative).
The Regenerative band is intentionally hard to reach. It is reserved for products whose existence makes the underlying biological or material system demonstrably stronger over time. A product that scores Regenerative is making a claim that, if true, is worth marketing — and we require the proof.
Why "Words" and "Numbers" Both
Each rating page shows both the numeric RI value (-7.0, -2.0, +4.5, etc.) and the canonical band name (Depleting, Extractive, Renewable, Restorative, Regenerative). Both matter:
- The number lets you compare two ratings within the same band ("a -2 ceiling moved further along the Extractive scale than a -4 ceiling").
- The band name makes the position legible to a buyer who has not internalised the −10 to +10 scale ("Depleting" tells you something the number cannot).
We never substitute or invent band names. "Transitioning" sounds friendlier than "Depleting", but it would let a depleting product hide behind softer language. The five names are fixed.
How the RI Folds Into the HIP Score
The Regenerative Index is normalised to a 0–10 scale before being weighted into the HIP Score:
RI Normalised = (RI Raw + 10) ÷ 2
So an RI raw of −7 becomes 1.5 in normalised terms; +4 becomes 7.0; +10 becomes 10. The normalised value is then weighted at 15% in the final HIP Score formula.
The two scales coexist on each rating page. The HIP Score uses the normalised number; the rating page surfaces both the raw RI and the band name so a reader can see the actual position on the regenerative scale.
Why the Gold HIP Mark Requires RI ≥ +6
The HIP Mark Gold tier is the only Mark that places a hard floor on the Regenerative Index. The threshold is HIP Score ≥ 9.0 and RI raw ≥ +6.
The reason is structural: a product can be excellent across the other six dimensions — durable, repairable, recyclable, audited, scarce-material-light, long-lived — and still be net-extractive. That is a Silver-grade product, and Silver does not require RI to be positive. Gold is reserved for products that are excellent and regenerative. Without the RI floor, a sufficiently durable extractive product could score 9.0 on the HIP Score alone, which would defeat the purpose of having a top-of-mark category that means something.
What a Regenerative Product Would Look Like
We do not currently have any rated product whose RI is in the Regenerative band. A hypothetical example might be:
- A piece of furniture made from Regenerative-Organic-Certified hardwood, harvested from a managed-forest programme that increases standing biomass year-on-year.
- Manufactured under a closed-loop recovery scheme that returns 100% of material at end of life.
- Audited annually by an independent body that publishes the ecosystem-function metrics.
That product would score in the Regenerative band. Almost no consumer-goods category currently has a manufacturer doing all three.
The point of including the band on the scale is not to suggest that this is normal today — it isn't — but to set the destination. A scale that runs out at "less bad" never tells a buyer when "less bad" has become "actively good". The Regenerative Index does.
Where to Go From Here
- The HIP Score explainer for how the seven dimensions combine.
- The generic-vs-verified explainer for how a manufacturer can move a category-default rating into a verified one.
- The methodology reference page for the full rubric and worked examples.
- The ratings catalogue — every rating shows both the RI raw value and the band name.
Methodology and edits by Chris Bowness; assistive AI used for drafting.