Surf Sweets

organic allergy-friendly gummy candy brand

Surf Sweets

Industry Food

An organic allergy-friendly candy brand selling gummies, jelly beans, and fruit candy at ordinary grocery-candy price points rather than luxury chocolate prices. Surf Sweets lands in D because it is a practical dye-free candy alternative, but private brand ownership, sugar, and youth-facing gummy candy keep the structure weak.

Why this matters: This is the kind of candy entry users need: not perfect, not elite, but materially better than ordinary cheap gummies.

Letter grade D Extractive Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1

Final Score 34* D - Extractive
DEXTRACTIVE34 tentative score pts

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

Base Material43
Bonus+2
Cap41Ownership <= 4 and Governance <= 4
After Cap41
Penalties-7
!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 Solidarity with the Unemployed, with the largest penalty coming from Youth Capture.

Strengths

  • Solidarity with the Unemployed6/7
  • Loss-Bearing Fidelity6/7
  • Extraction5/10

Penalties

  • Youth Capture-2
  • Accountability Opacity-2
  • Ecological Harm-1
  • High-Carbon Products-1

Evidence state

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

Scoring Axes
Axis Score Why this score
Ownership
?
Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.
4 / 10

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • Surf Sweets's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1]
  • context Surf Sweets's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2]
  • context Surf Sweets's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3]
  • context Surf Sweets's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4]
  • context Surf Sweets's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5]
  • context Surf Sweets's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6]
  • context Surf Sweets operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7]
  • context Surf Sweets's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8]
  • context Surf Sweets's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Governance
?
Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.
4 / 10

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • context Surf Sweets's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1]
  • Surf Sweets's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2]
  • context Surf Sweets's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3]
  • context Surf Sweets's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4]
  • context Surf Sweets's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5]
  • context Surf Sweets's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6]
  • context Surf Sweets operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7]
  • context Surf Sweets's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8]
  • context Surf Sweets's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Extraction
?
Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.
5 / 10

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • context Surf Sweets's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1]
  • context Surf Sweets's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2]
  • Surf Sweets's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3]
  • context Surf Sweets's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4]
  • context Surf Sweets's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5]
  • context Surf Sweets's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6]
  • context Surf Sweets operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7]
  • context Surf Sweets's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8]
  • context Surf Sweets's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Labor Sovereignty
?
Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.
4 / 7

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • context Surf Sweets's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1]
  • context Surf Sweets's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2]
  • context Surf Sweets's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3]
  • Surf Sweets's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4]
  • context Surf Sweets's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5]
  • context Surf Sweets's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6]
  • context Surf Sweets operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7]
  • context Surf Sweets's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8]
  • context Surf Sweets's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed
?
Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.
6 / 7

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • context Surf Sweets's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1]
  • context Surf Sweets's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2]
  • context Surf Sweets's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3]
  • context Surf Sweets's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4]
  • Surf Sweets's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5]
  • context Surf Sweets's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6]
  • context Surf Sweets operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7]
  • context Surf Sweets's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8]
  • context Surf Sweets's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity
?
Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.
6 / 7

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • context Surf Sweets's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1]
  • context Surf Sweets's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2]
  • context Surf Sweets's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3]
  • context Surf Sweets's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4]
  • context Surf Sweets's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5]
  • Surf Sweets's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6]
  • context Surf Sweets operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7]
  • context Surf Sweets's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8]
  • context Surf Sweets's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Market Conduct
?
Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.
5 / 5

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • context Surf Sweets's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1]
  • context Surf Sweets's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2]
  • context Surf Sweets's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3]
  • context Surf Sweets's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4]
  • context Surf Sweets's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5]
  • context Surf Sweets's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6]
  • Surf Sweets operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7]
  • context Surf Sweets's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8]
  • context Surf Sweets's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Product Integrity
?
Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.
5 / 5

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • context Surf Sweets's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1]
  • context Surf Sweets's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2]
  • context Surf Sweets's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3]
  • context Surf Sweets's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4]
  • context Surf Sweets's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5]
  • context Surf Sweets's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6]
  • context Surf Sweets operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7]
  • Surf Sweets's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8]
  • context Surf Sweets's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]
Scale Integrity
?
Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.
4 / 5

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • context Surf Sweets's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1]
  • context Surf Sweets's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2]
  • context Surf Sweets's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. [3]
  • context Surf Sweets's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4]
  • context Surf Sweets's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5]
  • context Surf Sweets's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6]
  • context Surf Sweets operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. [7]
  • context Surf Sweets's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. [8]
  • Surf Sweets's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. [9]

Penalties
Penalty Applied Why this penalty
Ecological Harm
?
Footprint, trajectory, irreversibility, culpability, and scale, including whether ecological harm is central to the model and continued after credible notice. Range: -30 to 0.
-1

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • Surf Sweets's public record makes Ecological Harm relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [12]
High-Carbon Products
?
Core products, services, financing, or supply chains that materially depend on fossil-fuel combustion, high-emissions transport, industrial animal agriculture, meat, dairy, or other unusually carbon-intensive activity. This is scored separately from general ecological harm so ordinary consumers can see carbon-intensive product exposure directly. Range: -10 to 0.
-1

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • Surf Sweets's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [13]
Toxic Products
?
Current sale of products whose ordinary use, exposure, ingredients, residues, packaging, or formulation creates toxic, addictive, or consumer-safety risk. Food products receive at least light scrutiny for artificial colors, artificial flavors, petro-derived additives, pesticide residues, contaminants, endocrine-disrupting packaging, and ultra-processed formulation. Ordinary adult nightlife or alcohol service is not penalized by itself without evidence of predatory marketing, youth targeting, addiction-extractive design, or unusual product-safety misconduct. Range: -5 to 0.
-1

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • Surf Sweets's public record makes Toxic Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [14]
Youth Capture
?
Manipulative youth-directed marketing, youth-data or attention monetization, collectible/add-on traps, parasocial or identity capture, surprise mechanics, or treating young people as lower-disclosure consumers. Making useful toys or welcoming children is not itself penalized. Range: -5 to 0.
-2

Surf Sweets's public record makes Youth Capture relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • Surf Sweets's public record makes Youth Capture relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [15]
Accountability Opacity
?
Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.
-2

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • Surf Sweets's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [16]

Bonus Credits
Bonus Credit Why this credit
Good Deal
?
Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.
1 / 3

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • Surf Sweets's public record makes Good Deal relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [10]
Cost Transparency
?
Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.
1 / 3

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

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services.

Linked evidence
  • Surf Sweets's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [11]

Confidence Basis

Confidence Basis

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

Medium 79/100

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

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

Claim confidence 16/20

16 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

16 direct claims across 16 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

16/16 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

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

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

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

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

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

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

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

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

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

Solidarity Unemployed Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

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

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

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

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

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

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

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

Scale Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

10Surf Sweets's public record makes Good Deal relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits.

Good Deal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

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

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

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

Ecological Harm Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

13Surf Sweets's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits.

High Carbon Products Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

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

Toxic Products Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

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

Youth Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

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

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

Alternatives

AGOOD61 tentative score Three Stone Hearth worker-owned community-supported kitchen · same market AGOOD60 tentative score Cheese Board Collective worker cooperative · same market AGOOD60 tentative score ChiFresh Kitchen worker-owned prepared-meal cooperative · same market AGOOD59 tentative score Alvarado Street Bakery worker-owned bakery · same market AGOOD59 tentative score Arizmendi Bakery worker cooperative bakery · same market

Competitors

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

Help Improve This Profile

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

How This Page Is Maintained

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

Civic Note

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

Submit evidence for Surf Sweets 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