Public, sourced reports of ESG and reputational controversies. We track context so you can decide — unverified claims don't deduct from Pickly scores.
A brand controversy is a documented, sourced incident — a safety recall, an ASA ruling on a misleading green claim, a labour finding or an environmental penalty. Pickly records them with dates and sources and weights them by severity and recency inside the ethics score, rather than treating all incidents as equal.
We record findings, not allegations. An upheld ASA ruling, a published regulator penalty, a confirmed recall, a court judgment or a substantiated investigation by a mainstream outlet qualifies. Social-media outrage, boycott campaigns and unverified claims do not.
This distinction matters because ethical shopping is drowning in unsourced assertions. A record on Pickly should mean something specific happened, on a date, and can be checked.
Controversies feed one pillar of the 0–100 score, not the whole thing. A single old, minor incident barely moves a strong product; a recent, severe finding against the brand pulls every product from that brand down.
We also try to correct for scrutiny bias. A supermarket with fifty thousand product lines will accumulate more records than a two-person soap workshop, so we weight by severity and pattern rather than counting incidents.
| Type | Source | Weight | Decay |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safety recall | OPSS / brand notice | High | Fades over 3 years |
| Upheld ASA ruling | ASA rulings database | Medium-high | Fades over 2 years |
| Environmental penalty | Regulator notice | High | Fades over 5 years |
| Labour finding | Court, regulator or investigation | Highest | Fades slowly |
| Ownership by a non-compliant parent | Company filings | Medium | Persists while owned |
It must be documented and sourced: an upheld regulatory or advertising ruling, a confirmed recall, a court judgment, a regulator penalty, or a substantiated investigation. Allegations and boycott campaigns are not recorded.
Not necessarily. Weight the date, the severity and whether it relates to what you are buying. A single old packaging complaint is very different from a recent, repeated labour finding.
Scrutiny scales with size. A national retailer with tens of thousands of lines will accumulate more records than a small maker, so we weight severity, recency and pattern rather than counting incidents.
If it is factually wrong or has been formally overturned, yes. Email corrections@pickly.uk with evidence and we publish a correction within seven days of verification. We do not remove accurate, sourced records on request.
The CMA's Green Claims Code sets out that environmental claims must be truthful, clear, complete and substantiated. Claims that fail can be challenged through the ASA or pursued by the CMA under consumer protection law.