How Mishava Works
Mishava evaluates products and companies using a standardized, SDG-aligned framework grounded in verifiable facts.
Framework Structure
Mishava uses a standardized evaluation framework aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Every product and company is measured against the same criteria, regardless of industry or geography.
The framework evaluates social, environmental, and governance outcomes using structured dimensions. Each dimension produces an evidence-backed status — not a single opaque number.
Evidence Collection
Mishava scores are based exclusively on fact-eligible evidence.
- Government and regulatory records
- Court rulings and enforcement actions
- Verified NGO and academic reporting
- Independent audits and certifications
- Public disclosures and filings
- Documented operational practices
- Advertising and marketing materials
- Unverified self-reported claims
- Opinion content or commentary
- Social media narratives without corroboration
Evidence that cannot be verified is not scored.
Scoring Logic
Mishava does not produce a single universal score. Instead, each trust dimension receives an evidence-backed status:
- Unknown — No evidence available
- Claimed — Organization claims but no external verification
- Partially supported — Some third-party evidence exists
- Supported — Verified by independent sources
- Strongly supported — Multiple independent verifications
- Mixed — Contradictory evidence
This approach preserves nuance and prevents the false precision of a single number.
User Questionnaire
Before scoring is activated, users are required to complete a questionnaire.
- Establishes how the user prioritizes different impact areas
- Prevents a single moral framework from being imposed
- Allows different users to reach different conclusions using the same evidence
- Can be updated or repeated as priorities change
Mishava provides the evidence. Interpretation remains with the user.
Accountability & Restoration
Mishava recognizes that organizations may cause harm.
Evaluation focuses not only on the presence of harm, but on the response.
Positive consideration is given when organizations:
- Acknowledge harm clearly and without deflection
- Accept responsibility
- Take concrete steps to repair damage
- Demonstrate measurable restitution
Failure to address harm is treated as materially different from transparent corrective action.