government

People’s Republic of China

A one-party state with highly centralized political control, pervasive surveillance capacity, severe restrictions on dissent, and documented large-scale abuses against minority groups and civil society. People’s Republic of China scores low because of coercive violence, documented human harm, and ecological harm, with centralized governance and weak stakeholder ownership reinforcing the negative evaluation.

Why this matters: China anchors the low end for centralized state power, surveillance capture, and systematic repression at very large scale.

Letter grade F Malignant Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 6, 2026

Final Score -61* F - Malignant

FMALIGNANT-61 pts

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

Base Material9

Bonus+0

Cap35Ownership <= 2 and Governance <= 2

After Cap9

Penalties-70

!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

F - Malignant

The score turns mainly on Extraction, with the largest penalty coming from Coercive Violence.

Strengths

Extraction2/10
Product Integrity2/5
Labor Sovereignty1/7

Penalties

Coercive Violence-24
Human Harm-18
Ecological Harm-10
Reversibility-5

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims9
Direct axis claims9
Coverage9/17

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	0 / 10	Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. That keeps People’s Republic of China low on Ownership: decisive control remains with shareholders, private owners, executives, or state insiders rather than affected people. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 11 tied, 215 above on Ownership. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. [1]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	0 / 10	Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. That keeps People’s Republic of China low on Governance: ordinary users, workers, customers, or affected communities cannot change the rules that govern them. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 1 tied, 225 above on Governance. Uncertainty Priority page: add more axis-specific research over time to make the comparative placement harder to dispute. Linked evidence Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. [1]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	2 / 10	Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. That keeps People’s Republic of China low on Extraction: the business model makes extraction from workers, users, suppliers, customers, or the public central rather than incidental. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 20 scored entries below, 18 tied, 188 above on Extraction. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. [1]
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.	1 / 7	Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. That keeps People’s Republic of China low on Labor Sovereignty: labor remains managerially controlled, replaceable, or exposed to coercive employment and contracting conditions. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 1 scored entries below, 6 tied, 219 above on Labor Sovereignty. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. [1]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	1 / 7	Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. That keeps People’s Republic of China low on Solidarity with the Unemployed: the model provides little protection for people who leave, are excluded, or cannot bargain from employment. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 3 scored entries below, 27 tied, 196 above on Solidarity with the Unemployed. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. [1]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	1 / 7	Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. That keeps People’s Republic of China low on Loss-Bearing Fidelity: losses, hazards, or adjustment costs are routinely pushed onto workers, customers, suppliers, communities, or the public. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 12 scored entries below, 20 tied, 194 above on Loss-Bearing Fidelity. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. [1]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	1 / 5	Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. That keeps People’s Republic of China low on Market Conduct: market power, lock-in, coercive pricing, or exclusionary conduct is a major part of the institution's position. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 15 scored entries below, 15 tied, 196 above on Market Conduct. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. [1]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	2 / 5	Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. That places People’s Republic of China in the middle of Product Integrity: the product has real use value but is compromised by incentives, monetization, lock-in, quality degradation, or risk. 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: Column-spectrum position: 23 scored entries below, 13 tied, 190 above on Product Integrity. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. [1]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	1 / 5	Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. That keeps People’s Republic of China low on Scale Integrity: scale magnifies harm, gatekeeping, opacity, or extraction rather than disciplining it. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 14 scored entries below, 16 tied, 196 above on Scale Integrity. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. [1]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Reversibility ? Applied when positive conduct depends on current living leaders, founders, family owners, or other person-contingent governance rather than durable structure. Range: -5 to 0.	-5	China has no competitive democratic turnover that would structurally lock in accountable power relations; rights outcomes depend on centralized party-state choices. China has no competitive democratic turnover that would structurally lock in accountable power relations; rights outcomes depend on centralized party-state choices. That warrants a severe Reversibility penalty because favorable conduct depends on current people or discretionary leadership rather than locked stakeholder structure. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 95 tied, 131 above on Reversibility. Linked evidence China has no competitive democratic turnover that would structurally lock in accountable power relations; rights outcomes depend on centralized party-state choices. [2]
Human Harm ? Severity, scale, culpability, vulnerable targets, willful reoffense, reputation laundering, pattern escalation, and time decay. Range: -20 to 0.	-18	OHCHR found serious human-rights violations in Xinjiang and said allegations of torture, arbitrary detention, and discriminatory restrictions may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity. OHCHR found serious human-rights violations in Xinjiang and said allegations of torture, arbitrary detention, and discriminatory restrictions may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity. That warrants a severe Human Harm penalty because ordinary operation, documented misconduct, or institutional power creates serious injury, deprivation, abuse, or foreseeable human damage. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 10 scored entries below, 1 tied, 215 above on Human Harm. Linked evidence OHCHR found serious human-rights violations in Xinjiang and said allegations of torture, arbitrary detention, and discriminatory restrictions may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity. [3]
Coercive Violence ? Direct or institutionally enabled killing, torture, detention abuse, armed repression, forced displacement, violent domination, or nonconsensual crisis-line emergency escalation that exposes callers to confinement or force. Range: -30 to 0.	-24	OHCHR findings on Xinjiang, together with pervasive party-state repression and surveillance, place China in a severe coercive-violence tier below open war-command maximums. OHCHR findings on Xinjiang, together with pervasive party-state repression and surveillance, place China in a severe coercive-violence tier below open war-command maximums. That warrants a severe Coercive Violence penalty because the institution uses, enables, profits from, or materially supports violent domination, detention abuse, war, or armed coercion. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 4 scored entries below, 0 tied, 222 above on Coercive Violence. Linked evidence OHCHR findings on Xinjiang, together with pervasive party-state repression and surveillance, place China in a severe coercive-violence tier below open war-command maximums. [4]
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.	-10	The People’s Republic of China keeps a severe national Ecological Harm penalty because it is the world’s largest annual greenhouse-gas emitter despite rapid clean-energy deployment. The People’s Republic of China keeps a severe national Ecological Harm penalty because it is the world’s largest annual greenhouse-gas emitter despite rapid clean-energy deployment. It is not pushed into the fossil-corporate worst tier here because national ecological accounting includes mixed industrial, population, and policy functions rather than a single profit model built around extraction. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 12 scored entries below, 1 tied, 213 above on Ecological Harm. Linked evidence China is the world’s largest annual greenhouse-gas emitter and has a major national ecological burden despite rapid clean-energy deployment. [5]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	China’s political system lacks independent electoral accountability and imposes severe limits on press, civil society, and dissent, creating material public-accountability opacity. China’s political system lacks independent electoral accountability and imposes severe limits on press, civil society, and dissent, creating material public-accountability opacity. 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: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 52 tied, 174 above on Accountability Opacity. Linked evidence China’s political system lacks independent electoral accountability and imposes severe limits on press, civil society, and dissent, creating material public-accountability opacity. [6]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-3	The Chinese state enforces ideological, national, ethnic, and party-alignment pressures through education, censorship, surveillance, and repression of dissent. The Chinese state enforces ideological, national, ethnic, and party-alignment pressures through education, censorship, surveillance, and repression of dissent. That warrants a severe Identity Capture penalty because users, workers, customers, or publics are pressured into identity attachment that protects institutional power. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 12 tied, 214 above on Identity Capture. Linked evidence The Chinese state enforces ideological, national, ethnic, and party-alignment pressures through education, censorship, surveillance, and repression of dissent. [7]
Surveillance Capture ? Invasive surveillance, unreasonably non-optional tracking, facial recognition, biometric identification, or AI behavior scanning of customers, workers, bystanders, or the public. Range: -5 to 0.	-5	Freedom House and human-rights reporting describe China as maintaining pervasive state surveillance and repression systems affecting political, religious, ethnic, and civic life. Freedom House and human-rights reporting describe China as maintaining pervasive state surveillance and repression systems affecting political, religious, ethnic, and civic life. That warrants a severe Surveillance Capture penalty because customers, workers, users, bystanders, or the public are exposed to invasive tracking, biometrics, or behavior scanning. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 12 tied, 214 above on Surveillance Capture. Linked evidence Freedom House and human-rights reporting describe China as maintaining pervasive state surveillance and repression systems affecting political, religious, ethnic, and civic life. [8]
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.	-3	People’s Republic of China's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because People’s Republic of China combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power… People’s Republic of China's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because People’s Republic of China combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power with pronounced claims of neutrality, administrative necessity, national legitimacy, safety, objectivity, or professional expertise. That warrants a severe Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. 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 People’s Republic of China's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because People’s Republic of China combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power with pronounced claims of neutrality, administrative necessity, national legitimacy, safety, objectivity, or professional expertise. [9]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

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

Medium 72/100

9 verified linked claims 9 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 9/17 components covered

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

Claim confidence 18/20

9 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 9/18

9 direct claims across 17 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

9/17 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.

1Freedom House rates China not free, reflecting centralized one-party rule and severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties.

Governance Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: China, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

2China has no competitive democratic turnover that would structurally lock in accountable power relations; rights outcomes depend on centralized party-state choices.

Reversibility Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: China, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

3OHCHR found serious human-rights violations in Xinjiang and said allegations of torture, arbitrary detention, and discriminatory restrictions may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.

Human Harm Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

OHCHR assessment of human rights concerns in XinjiangGeneral web source · 58%

4OHCHR findings on Xinjiang, together with pervasive party-state repression and surveillance, place China in a severe coercive-violence tier below open war-command maximums.

Coercive Violence Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

OHCHR assessment of human rights concerns in XinjiangGeneral web source · 58%
Freedom House: China, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%
Human Rights Watch: ChinaGeneral web source · 58%

5China is the world’s largest annual greenhouse-gas emitter and has a major national ecological burden despite rapid clean-energy deployment.

Ecological Harm Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

IEA countries: ChinaGeneral web source · 58%

6China’s political system lacks independent electoral accountability and imposes severe limits on press, civil society, and dissent, creating material public-accountability opacity.

Accountability Opacity Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: China, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

7The Chinese state enforces ideological, national, ethnic, and party-alignment pressures through education, censorship, surveillance, and repression of dissent.

Identity Capture Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: China, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%
OHCHR assessment of human rights concerns in XinjiangGeneral web source · 58%

8Freedom House and human-rights reporting describe China as maintaining pervasive state surveillance and repression systems affecting political, religious, ethnic, and civic life.

Surveillance Capture Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: China, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%
Human Rights Watch: ChinaGeneral web source · 58%

9People’s Republic of China's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because People’s Republic of China combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power with pronounced claims of neutrality, administrative necessity, national legitimacy, safety, objectivity, or professional expertise.

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

AI scaffold

People’s Republic of China official siteGeneral web source · 58%
Freedom House: China, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%
OHCHR assessment of human rights concerns in XinjiangGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

AGOOD51 Republic of Finland government · Finland

Competitors

AGOOD51 Republic of Finland government · Finland CPERFORMATIVE37 Kingdom of Norway government · Norway DEXTRACTIVE27 Federal Student Aid U.S. Department of Education student-aid office · United States DEXTRACTIVE23 United Nations intergovernmental organization · Global FMALIGNANT-17 United States federal government government · United States FMALIGNANT-19 Palestinian Authority government / limited self-government authority · Palestine FMALIGNANT-52 State of Israel government government · Israel FMALIGNANT-60 Hamas armed group / de facto authority · Israel

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 People’s Republic of China 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.

May 6, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding

View Full Audit Log