HowLegit assesses whether what a company says publicly is supported by publicly available evidence — and whether what the public actually experiences matches what the company claims.
We do this by combining structured claims analysis across Environmental, Social, and Commercial dimensions with social listening across review platforms, regulatory records, community forums, and media coverage. The result is a single coherent picture: what a company says, what the evidence shows, and what people are actually saying about the gap between the two.
We work at every scale — from a single webpage or pitch deck, to a full organisational audit, to sector-wide intelligence covering dozens of brands across multiple jurisdictions.
We do not conduct on-the-ground inspections or physical audits. Our methodology is designed to direct verification efficiently — giving procurement teams, investors, regulators, and specialist partner agencies a clear map of where claims hold up and where they do not.
Our findings are designed to direct on-the-ground verification efficiently. We tell you where the questions are. Specialist partner agencies answer them.
Every HowLegit audit assesses public-facing claims across three dimensions:
What the organisation claims about its environmental impact, practices, targets, and credentials — and whether those claims are supported by evidence.
What the organisation claims about its people, communities, governance, and ethical practices — and whether those claims reflect verifiable reality.
What the organisation claims about its identity, pricing, methodology, legal standing, and consumer rights obligations — and whether those claims are substantiated.
Before a claim is graded, it is classified by type:
A specific, factual, measurable claim. "We reduced emissions by 34% since 2019." These are held to the highest evidentiary standard.
A forward-looking or values-based claim. "We are committed to a sustainable future." These are assessed for whether any pathway evidence exists.
A claim that depends on a specific frame of reference. "One of the largest DSOs in Poland." These are assessed for whether the framing is accurate and fair.
Each applicable checklist item is assigned one of four statuses:
| Status | Points | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| PASS | 100 | The claim is specific, verifiable, and substantiated by evidence. |
| FLAG | 40 | The claim exists but is vague, unsubstantiated, outdated, or only partially supported. |
| FAIL | 0 | The claim is contradicted or disproved by available evidence. |
| N/A | Excluded | No claim is made in this area, or the checkpoint does not apply. |
Score = (PASS × 100 + FLAG × 40 + FAIL × 0) ÷ (applicable items × 100) × 100
| Grade | Score Range |
|---|---|
| A | 90–100% |
| A- | 80–89% |
| B+ | 73–79% |
| B | 67–72% |
| B- | 60–66% |
| C+ | 53–59% |
| C | 47–52% |
| C- | 40–46% |
| D+ | 33–39% |
| D | 27–32% |
| D- | 20–26% |
| F | Below 20% |
The confidence band reflects how many checklist items were applicable and graded.
15 or more applicable items. Statistically robust.
6 to 14 applicable items. Directionally reliable, but individual items carry more weight.
1 to 5 applicable items. Indicative only.
Not all sources carry equal weight. HowLegit uses a three-tier confidence system for evidence:
Regulatory bodies and public decisions, consumer protection organisations, editorially controlled professional media, court findings, certified sustainability reports.
Moderated review platforms such as Trustpilot, Google Reviews at entity level, and ProductReview. Industry association publications. Employer review platforms with partial verification.
Anonymous forums, social media, unverified community platforms. Used for directional sentiment only, never as sole evidence for a finding.
For full audits, HowLegit supplements the E-S-C claims analysis with a structured social listening assessment across five dimensions.
Overall sentiment on moderated review platforms, rating trends, volume and direction of recurring themes around delivery, warranty, after-sales, and brand responsiveness.
Formal complaints, regulatory actions, consumer body findings, and recurring pain points identified across structured feedback channels.
What real users and owners say in forums, enthusiast communities, and owner groups. Treated as directional and indicative — not as primary evidence.
Engagement quality on public social channels, complaint handling in public replies, and brand response behaviour.
Editorial assessments in industry media, awards and their credibility, head-to-head comparison results, and recurring journalist sentiment about the brand.
Each source is weighted by confidence band. Findings that appear only in Low confidence sources are labelled as indicative sentiment, not fact. Findings that appear across High and Medium sources are labelled as substantiated perception.
Where a High confidence source finding directly contradicts a brand's marketing claim, this is identified as a perception gap and highlighted prominently.
In addition to graded checklist items, each audit includes diagnostic flags — patterns that indicate structural risk even when no specific claim fails outright. Examples include hedging language without substantive commitment, material silence on the most significant risk facing the organisation, and framing that shifts responsibility to consumers for systemic issues.
Diagnostic flags are reported separately from graded items and do not affect the numerical score.
Every full audit includes a MILE checklist: ten prioritised actions ranked by Most Impact, Least Expenditure. Zero-cost actions are listed first. Each item is tied to a specific finding and identifies the checklist item it would resolve or improve.
HowLegit reports are not legal compliance opinions. They do not constitute legal advice. They are not regulatory filings, financial due diligence reports, or on-the-ground physical audits. All findings are based on publicly available information accessed at the time of evidence collection.
Where our findings indicate that physical verification is warranted, we identify the specific questions clearly so that specialist agencies can answer them efficiently.
If you disagree with a finding in your report, you can submit additional evidence for review. If the evidence warrants a change, the report is updated. Findings are never altered under commercial pressure — only evidence changes a grade.
We give organisations the benefit of the doubt. Some gaps are genuine oversights, not deliberate choices.
Current version: HowLegit E-S-C Messaging Integrity Framework v2.0, March 2026.
Questions about the methodology? Contact hello@optomize.io