passive-solar greenhouse manufacturer

Growing Spaces

A Colorado greenhouse manufacturer selling passive-solar geodesic Growing Dome greenhouse kits for home, school, community, and commercial food growing. Growing Spaces scores well because durable food-growing infrastructure and B Corp certification point in a good direction, though private product control and high purchase cost keep it below cooperative infrastructure.

Why this matters: A greenhouse that helps people grow food year-round is morally different from decorative garden retail, but access and ownership still matter.

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

Final Score 46* B - Qualified

BQUALIFIED46 pts

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

Base Material45

Bonus+4

Cap66No structure cap

After Cap49

Penalties-3

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 Solidarity with the Unemployed, with the largest penalty coming from Accountability Opacity.

Strengths

Solidarity with the Unemployed7/7
Ownership5/10
Governance5/10

Penalties

Accountability Opacity-2
High-Carbon Products-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims13
Direct axis claims13
Coverage13/13

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	5 / 10	Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. On Ownership, Growing Spaces sits in the positive middle: the products or services are materially useful for growing food or plants, and the institution shows some stewardship, durability, affordability, or mission discipline. It remains below the cooperative and nonprofit seed entries because customers and workers do not hold full binding control. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. [1] context Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. [2] context Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. [3] context Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. [4] context Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. [5] context Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. [6] context Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. [7] context Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. [8] context Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. [9]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	5 / 10	Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. On Governance, Growing Spaces sits in the positive middle: the products or services are materially useful for growing food or plants, and the institution shows some stewardship, durability, affordability, or mission discipline. It remains below the cooperative and nonprofit seed entries because customers and workers do not hold full binding control. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence context Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. [1] Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. [2] context Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. [3] context Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. [4] context Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. [5] context Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. [6] context Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. [7] context Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. [8] context Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. [9]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	5 / 10	Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. On Extraction, Growing Spaces sits in the positive middle: the products or services are materially useful for growing food or plants, and the institution shows some stewardship, durability, affordability, or mission discipline. It remains below the cooperative and nonprofit seed entries because customers and workers do not hold full binding control. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence context Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. [1] context Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. [2] Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. [3] context Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. [4] context Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. [5] context Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. [6] context Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. [7] context Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. [8] context Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. [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	Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. On Labor Sovereignty, Growing Spaces belongs low because useful garden products are being delivered through private, founder-led, acquired, catalog-rollup, or large supplier structures. The garden value prevents a floor score, but it does not by itself create accountable institutional power. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence context Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. [1] context Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. [2] context Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. [3] Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. [4] context Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. [5] context Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. [6] context Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. [7] context Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. [8] context Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	7 / 7	Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. On Solidarity with the Unemployed, Growing Spaces sits in the positive middle: the products or services are materially useful for growing food or plants, and the institution shows some stewardship, durability, affordability, or mission discipline. It remains below the cooperative and nonprofit seed entries because customers and workers do not hold full binding control. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence context Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. [1] context Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. [2] context Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. [3] context Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. [4] Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. [5] context Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. [6] context Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. [7] context Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. [8] context Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	5 / 7	Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. On Loss-Bearing Fidelity, Growing Spaces sits in the positive middle: the products or services are materially useful for growing food or plants, and the institution shows some stewardship, durability, affordability, or mission discipline. It remains below the cooperative and nonprofit seed entries because customers and workers do not hold full binding control. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence context Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. [1] context Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. [2] context Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. [3] context Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. [4] context Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. [5] Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. [6] context Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. [7] context Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. [8] context Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. [9]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	5 / 5	Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. On Market Conduct, Growing Spaces sits in the positive middle: the products or services are materially useful for growing food or plants, and the institution shows some stewardship, durability, affordability, or mission discipline. It remains below the cooperative and nonprofit seed entries because customers and workers do not hold full binding control. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence context Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. [1] context Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. [2] context Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. [3] context Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. [4] context Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. [5] context Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. [6] Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. [7] context Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. [8] context Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. [9]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	5 / 5	Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. On Product Integrity, Growing Spaces sits in the positive middle: the products or services are materially useful for growing food or plants, and the institution shows some stewardship, durability, affordability, or mission discipline. It remains below the cooperative and nonprofit seed entries because customers and workers do not hold full binding control. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence context Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. [1] context Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. [2] context Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. [3] context Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. [4] context Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. [5] context Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. [6] context Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. [7] Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. [8] context Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. [9]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. On Scale Integrity, Growing Spaces sits in the positive middle: the products or services are materially useful for growing food or plants, and the institution shows some stewardship, durability, affordability, or mission discipline. It remains below the cooperative and nonprofit seed entries because customers and workers do not hold full binding control. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence context Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market. [1] context Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company. [2] context Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures. [3] context Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status. [4] context Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning. [5] context Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes. [6] context Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality. [7] context Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information. [8] Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
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.	-1	Growing Spaces's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. Growing Spaces's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. This warrants a High-Carbon Products penalty because the risk is tied to how the institution sells, sources, prices, markets, or governs gardening products, not merely to the existence of gardening commerce. The value is limited where the evidence indicates ordinary category exposure rather than severe, repeated, or unavoidable harm. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence Growing Spaces's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. [12]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Growing Spaces's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. Growing Spaces's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. This warrants a Accountability Opacity penalty because the risk is tied to how the institution sells, sources, prices, markets, or governs gardening products, not merely to the existence of gardening commerce. The value is limited where the evidence indicates ordinary category exposure rather than severe, repeated, or unavoidable harm. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence Growing Spaces's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. [13]

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.	2 / 3	Growing Spaces's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. Growing Spaces's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. This earns Good Deal credit because the practice creates unusual public value in gardening: lower-cost access, seed-saving freedom, regional adaptation, transparent grower information, or durable equipment that reduces repeat purchases. The credit stays bounded where access still depends on a private store, catalog, or platform. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence Growing Spaces's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. [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.	2 / 3	Growing Spaces's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. Growing Spaces's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. This earns Cost Transparency credit because the practice creates unusual public value in gardening: lower-cost access, seed-saving freedom, regional adaptation, transparent grower information, or durable equipment that reduces repeat purchases. The credit stays bounded where access still depends on a private store, catalog, or platform. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Online gardening pass calibrated across cooperative seed companies, nonprofit seed preservation, old catalog retailers, creator-commerce gardening stores, nurseries, and greenhouse suppliers. Linked evidence Growing Spaces's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy. [11]

Confidence Basis

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

High 80/100

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

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

Claim confidence 17/20

13 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

13 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 10/10

13/13 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceHigh 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.

1Growing Spaces's public record identifies its ownership form or parent relationship in the online gardening, seed, nursery, or greenhouse market.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Growing Spaces LinkedInGeneral web source · 58%

2Growing Spaces's public materials indicate whether control sits with workers, consumers, a nonprofit board, a family owner, a founder, a private acquirer, or a parent company.

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Growing Spaces LinkedInGeneral web source · 58%

3Growing Spaces's model determines whether gardening value is routed through cooperative, nonprofit, employee-owned, small-farm, creator-commerce, catalog-rollup, or private supplier structures.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Growing Spaces LinkedInGeneral web source · 58%

4Growing Spaces's reviewed public record shows the degree to which workers have binding ownership or governance power rather than ordinary employment status.

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

Growing Spaces LinkedInGeneral web source · 58%

5Growing Spaces's products or services can support home food growing, seed saving, small farms, school gardens, community gardens, or lower-cost self-provisioning.

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

Pagosa Daily Post on B Corp certificationGeneral web source · 58%

6Growing Spaces's public model and product promises affect whether customers carry the risk of crop failure, poor germination, weak plants, shipping damage, bad advice, or expensive equipment mistakes.

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

Pagosa Daily Post on B Corp certificationGeneral web source · 58%

7Growing Spaces operates in a market where gardeners often rely on trust, variety descriptions, seed counts, guarantees, regional adaptation claims, and replacement policies before they can verify quality.

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

Pagosa Daily Post on B Corp certificationGeneral web source · 58%

8Growing Spaces's core product integrity depends on seed viability, plant health, accurate variety representation, durable supplies, transparent sourcing, and useful growing information.

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

Growing Spaces LinkedInGeneral web source · 58%

9Growing Spaces's scale, distribution, catalog reach, content audience, or installation capacity affects whether its gardening work remains educative and accountable or becomes extractive retail infrastructure.

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

Pagosa Daily Post on B Corp certificationGeneral web source · 58%

10Growing Spaces's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy.

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

Pagosa Daily Post on B Corp certificationGeneral web source · 58%

11Growing Spaces's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy.

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

Pagosa Daily Post on B Corp certificationGeneral web source · 58%

12Growing Spaces's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy.

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

Pagosa Daily Post on B Corp certificationGeneral web source · 58%

13Growing Spaces's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership structure, pricing, sourcing, subscriptions, content-to-commerce design, product-risk profile, pesticide/plastic exposure, or public controversy.

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

Pagosa Daily Post on B Corp certificationGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD61 Fedco Seeds worker- and consumer-owned seed cooperative · same market AGOOD60 Seed Savers Exchange nonprofit heirloom seed-preservation organization · same market AGOOD59 Southern Exposure Seed Exchange worker-owned heirloom and organic seed company · same market AGOOD57 Experimental Farm Network nonprofit cooperative seed network and seed store · same market AGOOD52 Johnny's Selected Seeds employee-owned seed and garden-supply company · same market BQUALIFIED47 High Mowing Organic Seeds organic seed company · same market BQUALIFIED45 Adaptive Seeds farm-based organic seed company · same market BQUALIFIED43 Bootstrap Farmer family-owned greenhouse and seed-starting supply company · 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 Growing Spaces 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