environmental health advocacy nonprofit

Environmental Working Group

A U.S. environmental-health advocacy nonprofit known for consumer guides on pesticides, water, cosmetics, household products, and chemicals. Environmental Working Group remains weak because of material opacity, identity capture, and ideological disavowal, even where the product or service has practical value.

Why this matters: EWG is a useful lower-scoring environmental-advocacy calibration case: its consumer-protection orientation has real public value, while recurring criticism of risk communication and ranking methodology weakens product integrity.

Letter grade D Extractive Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 7, 2026

Final Score 34* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE34 pts

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

Base Material37

Bonus+1

Cap41Ownership <= 4 and Governance <= 4

After Cap38

Penalties-4

!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

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Extraction, with the largest penalty coming from Accountability Opacity.

Strengths

Extraction6/10
Scale Integrity5/5
Ownership4/10

Penalties

Accountability Opacity-2
Identity Capture-1
Ideological Disavowal-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessPartial (AI)
Linked claims6
Direct axis claims6
Coverage6/13

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	4 / 10	EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. That places Environmental Working Group in the middle of Ownership: there is some mission, member, producer, or public-interest constraint, but decisive control is not fully democratic. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. [1] context EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. [2]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	4 / 10	EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. That places Environmental Working Group in the middle of Governance: there are accountability mechanisms, but they stop short of broad democratic control. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence context EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. [1] context EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. [2]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	6 / 10	EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. That places Environmental Working Group in the middle of Extraction: the institution creates real value but still leaves room for rent extraction, unequal bargaining, or surplus capture. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence context EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. [1] context EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. [2]
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.	3 / 7	EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. That places Environmental Working Group in the middle of Labor Sovereignty: workers or participants have some protection or agency, but not enough binding power to control the relationship. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence context EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. [1] context EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. [2]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	4 / 7	EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. That places Environmental Working Group in the middle of Solidarity with the Unemployed: some access, severance, retraining, openness, or mutual-aid value is present, but it is not central or durable. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence context EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. [1] context EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. [2]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	4 / 7	EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. That places Environmental Working Group in the middle of Loss-Bearing Fidelity: there is some willingness to preserve obligations, but the record still leaves meaningful risk-shifting concerns. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence context EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. [1] context EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. [2]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	3 / 5	EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. That places Environmental Working Group in the middle of Market Conduct: the product has real value but still uses meaningful lock-in, gatekeeping, market power, or dependency. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence context EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. [1] context EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. [2]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	4 / 5	EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. That places Environmental Working Group high on Product Integrity: the core offering is genuinely useful and comparatively less dependent on traps, degradation, or harmful dependencies. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence context EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. [1] EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. [2]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	5 / 5	EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. That places Environmental Working Group high on Scale Integrity: growth appears compatible with accountability, quality, and stakeholder benefit. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence context EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure. [1] context EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides. [2]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	EWG’s Dirty Dozen pesticide messaging is disputed by critics and peer-reviewed analysis that say its ranking method can overstate consumer risk by ignoring dose and regulatory safety context. EWG’s Dirty Dozen pesticide messaging is disputed by critics and peer-reviewed analysis that say its ranking method can overstate consumer risk by ignoring dose and regulatory safety context. That warrants a severe Accountability Opacity penalty because material facts, risks, conflicts, ownership, or accountability information are obscured from the public. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence EWG’s Dirty Dozen pesticide messaging is disputed by critics and peer-reviewed analysis that say its ranking method can overstate consumer risk by ignoring dose and regulatory safety context. [4]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	EWG consumer guides can create lifestyle and purity pressure around food and household-product identity, especially where the underlying risk communication is contested. EWG consumer guides can create lifestyle and purity pressure around food and household-product identity, especially where the underlying risk communication is contested. That warrants a limited Identity Capture penalty because users, workers, customers, or publics are pressured into identity attachment that protects institutional power. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence EWG consumer guides can create lifestyle and purity pressure around food and household-product identity, especially where the underlying risk communication is contested. [5]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	Environmental Working Group's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Environmental Working Group shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are… Environmental Working Group's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Environmental Working Group shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through expertise, public-interest, professional, market, safety, or institutional language, but the record does not show dominant. That warrants a limited Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal 0 to -3 recalibration: 0 for explicit standpoint or no penalty-level neutrality theater; -1 for bounded softening of contested choices; -2 for strong neutrality theater by a powerful institution; -3 for major gatekeeping or coercive power presented as neutral, necessary, objective, or non-ideological. Uncertainty This recalibration uses public self-presentation and profile evidence; later review should add direct language-analysis evidence for high-impact institutions. Linked evidence Environmental Working Group's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Environmental Working Group shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through expertise, public-interest, professional, market, safety, or institutional language, but the record does not show dominant concealment of standpoint. [6]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
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	EWG publishes funding and report materials and describes foundation, individual, online donor, and company support. EWG publishes funding and report materials and describes foundation, individual, online donor, and company support. That supports partial Cost Transparency credit because pricing, margins, fees, funding, or surplus allocation are made meaningfully legible. The value remains partial because the linked record does not show the practice as comprehensive, durable, or central enough for full credit. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: C-F environmental advocacy calibration pass; compare against Sierra Club, NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, WWF, EWG, Just Stop Oil, and African Parks. Uncertainty This is a focused calibration entry; a later pass should add more axis-specific claims and counterevidence. Linked evidence EWG publishes funding and report materials and describes foundation, individual, online donor, and company support. [3]

Confidence Basis

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

Medium 66/100

6 verified linked claims 6 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 6/13 components covered

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

Claim confidence 14/20

6 verified linked claims

Source quality 13/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 6/18

6 direct claims across 13 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 5/10

6/13 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessPartial (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.

1EWG is a 501(c)(3) environmental-health nonprofit, not a shareholder-owned company, with a professional staff and board-led structure.

Ownership Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 7, 2026

AI scaffold

EWG: Who We AreGeneral web source · 58%
EWG Shopper’s Guide / Dirty DozenGeneral web source · 58%

2EWG’s core public product is consumer-facing environmental-health guidance, including widely circulated pesticide and product-safety guides.

Product Integrity Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 7, 2026

AI scaffold

EWG: Who We AreGeneral web source · 58%
EWG Shopper’s Guide / Dirty DozenGeneral web source · 58%

3EWG publishes funding and report materials and describes foundation, individual, online donor, and company support.

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 7, 2026

AI scaffold

EWG: Who We AreGeneral web source · 58%
EWG Shopper’s Guide / Dirty DozenGeneral web source · 58%

4EWG’s Dirty Dozen pesticide messaging is disputed by critics and peer-reviewed analysis that say its ranking method can overstate consumer risk by ignoring dose and regulatory safety context.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 7, 2026

AI scaffold

Journal of Toxicology / PMC: Dirty Dozen methodology critiquePrimary public record · 100%
Food Safety News: AFF challenges EWG Dirty Dozen validityGeneral web source · 58%

5EWG consumer guides can create lifestyle and purity pressure around food and household-product identity, especially where the underlying risk communication is contested.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 7, 2026

AI scaffold

EWG: Who We AreGeneral web source · 58%
EWG Shopper’s Guide / Dirty DozenGeneral web source · 58%
Journal of Toxicology / PMC: Dirty Dozen methodology critiquePrimary public record · 100%
Food Safety News: AFF challenges EWG Dirty Dozen validityGeneral web source · 58%

6Environmental Working Group's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Environmental Working Group shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through expertise, public-interest, professional, market, safety, or institutional language, but the record does not show dominant concealment of standpoint.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

Environmental Working Group official siteGeneral web source · 58%
EWG: Who We AreGeneral web source · 58%
EWG Shopper’s Guide / Dirty DozenGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

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 Environmental Working Group 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