certified B Corp chocolate company

Chocolat-e

Industry Food

An Oregon benefit corporation and certified B Corp making chocolate with a stated ethical purpose, sustainable packaging work, and community giving. Chocolat-e lands in C because the corporate form and B Corp record are better than normal candy retail, but outsourced sourcing reliance and small private control keep it below stronger entries.

Why this matters: Chocolat-e is a smaller positive option where benefit-corporation commitments matter, but the sourcing chain still needs scrutiny.

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

Final Score 40* C - Performative

CPERFORMATIVE40 pts

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

Base Material44

Bonus+2

Cap66No structure cap

After Cap46

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

C - Performative

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

Strengths

Extraction6/10
Loss-Bearing Fidelity6/7
Ownership5/10

Penalties

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

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims15
Direct axis claims15
Coverage15/15

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	5 / 10	Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. On Ownership, Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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	Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. On Governance, Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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.	6 / 10	Chocolat-e'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. Chocolat-e'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, Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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	Chocolat-e's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. Chocolat-e'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, Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Chocolat-e'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] Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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.	5 / 7	Chocolat-e's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. Chocolat-e'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, Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] Chocolat-e's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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	Chocolat-e's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. Chocolat-e'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, Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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	Chocolat-e 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. Chocolat-e 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, Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Chocolat-e's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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	Chocolat-e'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. Chocolat-e'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, Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e 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] Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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.	3 / 5	Chocolat-e's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. 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 Chocolat-e's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Chocolat-e's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e 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 Chocolat-e'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] Chocolat-e'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	Chocolat-e'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. Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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. [12]
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	Chocolat-e'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. Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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. [13]
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	Chocolat-e'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. Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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. [14]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Chocolat-e'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. Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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. [15]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
Good Deal ? Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.	1 / 3	Chocolat-e'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. Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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. [10]
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.	1 / 3	Chocolat-e'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. Chocolat-e'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 Chocolat-e'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. [11]

Confidence Basis

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

Medium 79/100

15 verified linked claims 15 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 15/15 components covered

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

Claim confidence 16/20

15 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

15 direct claims across 15 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

15/15 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.

1Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e B Corp profileGeneral web source · 58%

2Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e B Corp profileGeneral web source · 58%

3Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e B Corp profileGeneral web source · 58%

4Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e B Corp profileGeneral web source · 58%

5Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e 2025 benefits reportGeneral web source · 58%

6Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e 2025 benefits reportGeneral web source · 58%

7Chocolat-e 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

Chocolat-e 2025 benefits reportGeneral web source · 58%

8Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e B Corp profileGeneral web source · 58%

9Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e 2025 benefits reportGeneral web source · 58%

10Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e 2025 benefits reportGeneral web source · 58%

11Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e 2025 benefits reportGeneral web source · 58%

12Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e 2025 benefits reportGeneral web source · 58%

13Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e 2025 benefits reportGeneral web source · 58%

14Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e 2025 benefits reportGeneral web source · 58%

15Chocolat-e'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

Chocolat-e 2025 benefits reportGeneral 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 Chocolat-e 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