direct-trade bean-to-bar chocolate company

Askinosie Chocolate

Industry Food

A direct-trade bean-to-bar chocolate company that publishes open-book sourcing practices, pays above Fair Trade pricing, and shares profits with cocoa farmer partners. Askinosie scores as a B because the farmer relationship is unusually concrete and transparent, while private ownership and luxury chocolate pricing keep it below the A cooperative/farmer-owned anchors.

Why this matters: Askinosie is a strong example of how a private chocolate maker can still make the scoring relationship explicit instead of hiding behind generic fair-trade language.

Letter grade B Qualified Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 13, 2026

Final Score 47* B - Qualified

BQUALIFIED47 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material47

Bonus+6

Cap66No structure cap

After Cap53

Penalties-6

Small business context

This entry is classified as a small business using observable scale signals: independent control, local or limited operations, and no evidence of public-company or national-chain scale. The small-business calibration keeps the ordinary rubric but reads evidence at person scale: living-wage pricing is not extraction by itself, while worker and contractor treatment, owner surplus, transparency, advertising pressure, dissent tolerance, and recourse matter more. Harm, toxicity, surveillance, labor, coercion, opacity, and hidden-parent penalties are not relaxed.

Applied cap: No structure cap

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

B - Qualified

The score turns mainly on Extraction, with the largest penalty coming from High-Carbon Products.

Strengths

Extraction7/10
Solidarity with the Unemployed6/7
Loss-Bearing Fidelity6/7

Penalties

High-Carbon Products-2
Accountability Opacity-2
Ecological Harm-1
Toxic Products-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims16
Direct axis claims16
Coverage16/16

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	5 / 10	Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. On Ownership, Askinosie Chocolate is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3] context Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] context Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] context Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7] context Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8] context Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	5 / 10	Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. On Governance, Askinosie Chocolate is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3] context Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] context Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] context Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7] context Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8] context Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	7 / 10	Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. On Extraction, Askinosie Chocolate belongs near the top of chocolate entries because the model routes power or value toward farmers, producer-country workers, or structurally protected mission commitments rather than simply selling nicer candy. It stays below the strongest cooperative anchors where direct democratic control is not fully documented. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3] context Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] context Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] context Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7] context Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8] context Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	4 / 7	Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. On Labor Sovereignty, Askinosie Chocolate is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3] Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] context Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] context Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7] context Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8] context Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	6 / 7	Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. On Solidarity with the Unemployed, Askinosie Chocolate is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3] context Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] context Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7] context Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8] context Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	6 / 7	Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. On Loss-Bearing Fidelity, Askinosie Chocolate is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3] context Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] context Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] context Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7] context Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8] context Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	5 / 5	Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. On Market Conduct, Askinosie Chocolate is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3] context Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] context Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7] context Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8] context Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	5 / 5	Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. On Product Integrity, Askinosie Chocolate is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3] context Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] context Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] context Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7] Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8] context Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. On Scale Integrity, Askinosie Chocolate is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3] context Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] context Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] context Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7] context Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8] Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Ecological Harm ? Footprint, trajectory, irreversibility, culpability, and scale, including whether ecological harm is central to the model and continued after credible notice. Range: -30 to 0.	-1	Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Ecological Harm relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Ecological Harm relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This warrants a Ecological Harm penalty because chocolate and candy still carry real product burdens: sugar, cocoa carbon, dairy exposure, youth-facing candy appeal, subscription risk, or incomplete public accountability. The penalty is bounded where the company shows credible sourcing, safer ingredients, or a less extractive model. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Ecological Harm relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [13]
High-Carbon Products ? Core products, services, financing, or supply chains that materially depend on fossil-fuel combustion, high-emissions transport, industrial animal agriculture, meat, dairy, or other unusually carbon-intensive activity. This is scored separately from general ecological harm so ordinary consumers can see carbon-intensive product exposure directly. Range: -10 to 0.	-2	Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This warrants a High-Carbon Products penalty because chocolate and candy still carry real product burdens: sugar, cocoa carbon, dairy exposure, youth-facing candy appeal, subscription risk, or incomplete public accountability. The penalty is bounded where the company shows credible sourcing, safer ingredients, or a less extractive model. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [14]
Toxic Products ? Current sale of products whose ordinary use, exposure, ingredients, residues, packaging, or formulation creates toxic, addictive, or consumer-safety risk. Food products receive at least light scrutiny for artificial colors, artificial flavors, petro-derived additives, pesticide residues, contaminants, endocrine-disrupting packaging, and ultra-processed formulation. Ordinary adult nightlife or alcohol service is not penalized by itself without evidence of predatory marketing, youth targeting, addiction-extractive design, or unusual product-safety misconduct. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Toxic Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Toxic Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This warrants a Toxic Products penalty because chocolate and candy still carry real product burdens: sugar, cocoa carbon, dairy exposure, youth-facing candy appeal, subscription risk, or incomplete public accountability. The penalty is bounded where the company shows credible sourcing, safer ingredients, or a less extractive model. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Toxic Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [15]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This warrants a Accountability Opacity penalty because chocolate and candy still carry real product burdens: sugar, cocoa carbon, dairy exposure, youth-facing candy appeal, subscription risk, or incomplete public accountability. The penalty is bounded where the company shows credible sourcing, safer ingredients, or a less extractive model. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [16]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
Openness to Dissent ? Credit for tolerating internal, user, customer, worker, and public dissent without retaliation, capture, or viewpoint laundering.	1 / 3	Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This earns Openness to Dissent credit because the record shows more than ordinary brand virtue: pricing transparency, farmer premiums, ingredient clarity, allergy access, subscription curation, or mission-locking gives users and producers more usable information or value. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [10]
Good Deal ? Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.	2 / 3	Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Good Deal relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Good Deal relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This earns Good Deal credit because the record shows more than ordinary brand virtue: pricing transparency, farmer premiums, ingredient clarity, allergy access, subscription curation, or mission-locking gives users and producers more usable information or value. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Good Deal relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [11]
Cost Transparency ? Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.	3 / 3	Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This earns Cost Transparency credit because the record shows more than ordinary brand virtue: pricing transparency, farmer premiums, ingredient clarity, allergy access, subscription curation, or mission-locking gives users and producers more usable information or value. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [12]

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 79/100

16 verified linked claims 16 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 16/16 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

16 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

16 direct claims across 16 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

16/16 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Askinosie Chocolate's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie direct tradeGeneral web source · 58%

2Askinosie Chocolate's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure.

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie direct tradeGeneral web source · 58%

3Askinosie Chocolate's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie direct tradeGeneral web source · 58%

4Askinosie Chocolate's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie direct tradeGeneral web source · 58%

5Askinosie Chocolate's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

6Askinosie Chocolate's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

7Askinosie Chocolate operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

8Askinosie Chocolate's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie direct tradeGeneral web source · 58%

9Askinosie Chocolate's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect.

Scale Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

10Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits.

Openness To Dissent Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

11Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Good Deal relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits.

Good Deal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

12Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits.

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

13Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Ecological Harm relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits.

Ecological Harm Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

14Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits.

High Carbon Products Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

15Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Toxic Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits.

Toxic Products Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

16Askinosie Chocolate's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Askinosie FAQGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD61 Three Stone Hearth worker-owned community-supported kitchen · same market AGOOD60 Cheese Board Collective worker cooperative · same market AGOOD60 ChiFresh Kitchen worker-owned prepared-meal cooperative · same market AGOOD59 Alvarado Street Bakery worker-owned bakery · same market AGOOD59 Arizmendi Bakery worker cooperative bakery · same market AGOOD59 Rainbow Grocery Cooperative worker cooperative grocer · same market AGOOD58 Equal Exchange worker cooperative · same market AGOOD58 Niles Pie Company worker-owned pie shop and bakery · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Askinosie Chocolate Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log