organic hard candy and fruit-chew brand

Torie & Howard

Industry Food

An American Licorice-owned brand selling organic hard candy and fruit chews with non-GMO and gluten-free positioning. Torie & Howard lands in D because it is more accessible than boutique organic candy, but parent-company ownership, ordinary sugar candy, and youth-facing exposure prevent a positive structural rating.

Why this matters: Torie & Howard is worth listing because shoppers can actually find it, but the parent-company context prevents over-crediting the brand.

Letter grade D Extractive High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Parent / owner: American Licorice Company Last reviewed May 13, 2026

Torie & Howard is owned by American Licorice Company, which is not yet separately listed.

Final Score 34* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE34 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

ConfidenceHigh 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	Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. On Ownership, Torie & Howard is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard 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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. On Governance, Torie & Howard is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard 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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard'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. Torie & Howard's business model affects whether cocoa value is retained by farmers, producer-country workers, transparent direct-trade partners, a retail curator, or an ordinary candy company. On Extraction, Torie & Howard is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard 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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. Torie & Howard's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. On Labor Sovereignty, Torie & Howard is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Torie & Howard'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] Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard 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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. On Solidarity with the Unemployed, Torie & Howard is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard's public record gives evidence about worker, farmer, or producer-country power, but does not show full worker cooperative control unless specifically noted. [4] Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard 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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. Torie & Howard's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. On Loss-Bearing Fidelity, Torie & Howard is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard 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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard 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. Torie & Howard operates in a chocolate or candy market where shoppers depend on sourcing claims, ingredient claims, subscription terms, certifications, and trust before they can verify quality or ethics. On Market Conduct, Torie & Howard is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Torie & Howard's model shows whether the company absorbs costs through premiums, certifications, direct sourcing, simpler ingredients, safer formulations, subscription curation, or mission-locked commitments. [6] Torie & Howard 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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard'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. Torie & Howard's product integrity depends on ingredient simplicity, allergy safety, direct cacao sourcing, farmer payment, transparent subscription curation, and avoidance of artificial colors or cheap filler. On Product Integrity, Torie & Howard is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard 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] Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. Torie & Howard's scale determines whether its positive model remains accountable, reaches ordinary shoppers, or becomes a premium niche with limited structural effect. On Scale Integrity, Torie & Howard is a B-range or high-C-range chocolate case: the product or sourcing model is materially better than mass-market candy, but control remains partly private, founder-led, retail-mediated, or certification-dependent. That places it above ordinary candy brands and below farmer-owned or worker-owned institutions. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence context Torie & Howard's public record identifies its ownership form, certification status, producer-country model, direct-trade model, subscription model, or mission-oriented private structure. [1] context Torie & Howard's public materials indicate whether control sits with farmers, employees, supporters, founders, a benefit corporation, private managers, or a conventional company structure. [2] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard's products or model can support farmers, producer-country employment, allergy-excluded consumers, ethical sourcing, or practical alternatives to mass-market candy. [5] context Torie & Howard'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 Torie & Howard 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 Torie & Howard'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] Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard'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. Torie & Howard's public record makes Ecological Harm relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This warrants a Ecological Harm penalty because chocolate and candy still carry real product burdens: sugar, cocoa carbon, dairy exposure, youth-facing candy appeal, subscription risk, or incomplete public accountability. The penalty is bounded where the company shows credible sourcing, safer ingredients, or a less extractive model. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard'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. Torie & Howard's public record makes High-Carbon Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This warrants a High-Carbon Products penalty because chocolate and candy still carry real product burdens: sugar, cocoa carbon, dairy exposure, youth-facing candy appeal, subscription risk, or incomplete public accountability. The penalty is bounded where the company shows credible sourcing, safer ingredients, or a less extractive model. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard'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. Torie & Howard's public record makes Toxic Products relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This warrants a Toxic Products penalty because chocolate and candy still carry real product burdens: sugar, cocoa carbon, dairy exposure, youth-facing candy appeal, subscription risk, or incomplete public accountability. The penalty is bounded where the company shows credible sourcing, safer ingredients, or a less extractive model. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard'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. Torie & Howard'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. This warrants a Youth Capture penalty because chocolate and candy still carry real product burdens: sugar, cocoa carbon, dairy exposure, youth-facing candy appeal, subscription risk, or incomplete public accountability. The penalty is bounded where the company shows credible sourcing, safer ingredients, or a less extractive model. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard'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. Torie & Howard's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This warrants a Accountability Opacity penalty because chocolate and candy still carry real product burdens: sugar, cocoa carbon, dairy exposure, youth-facing candy appeal, subscription risk, or incomplete public accountability. The penalty is bounded where the company shows credible sourcing, safer ingredients, or a less extractive model. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard'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. Torie & Howard's public record makes Good Deal relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This earns Good Deal credit because the record shows more than ordinary brand virtue: pricing transparency, farmer premiums, ingredient clarity, allergy access, subscription curation, or mission-locking gives users and producers more usable information or value. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Torie & Howard'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	Torie & Howard'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. Torie & Howard's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. This earns Cost Transparency credit because the record shows more than ordinary brand virtue: pricing transparency, farmer premiums, ingredient clarity, allergy access, subscription curation, or mission-locking gives users and producers more usable information or value. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Positive chocolate and candy pass calibrated against Equal Exchange, Divine Chocolate, mass-market candy firms, direct-trade craft makers, allergy-safe candy, and chocolate subscription services. Linked evidence Torie & Howard's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through farmer payment, direct trade, certification, subscription design, ingredient quality, allergy access, youth-facing candy exposure, cocoa carbon burden, or transparency limits. [11]

Confidence Basis

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

High 80/100

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 11/18

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

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.

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

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Torie & Howard aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

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

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Torie & Howard aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

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

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

Torie & Howard aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

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

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

Torie & Howard aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

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

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

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

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

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

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

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

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

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

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

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

Torie & Howard aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

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

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

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

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

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

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

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

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

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

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

Ecological Harm Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

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

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

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

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

Toxic Products Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 13, 2026

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

15Torie & Howard'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 May 13, 2026

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

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

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

American Licorice acquisition announcementGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

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

Help Improve This Profile

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

How This Page Is Maintained

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

Civic Note

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

Submit evidence for Torie & Howard 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