Aperta Analytics does not rate companies. It verifies whether their public claims are substantiated by observable, independent evidence.
Aperta Analytics uses established ESG frameworks (GRI, SASB, TCFD, CDP, MSCI) as benchmarks. Not as compliance tools. As the ruler against which claims are measured.
Every company makes sustainability claims. Few provide evidence that would survive independent scrutiny. The methodology identifies the gap between what is said and what is provable.
This is not consulting. Aperta does not help companies write better reports. It checks whether existing reports, ratings, and public statements hold up under systematic, evidence-based review.
The methodology is claim-agnostic and industry-agnostic. It applies the same evidentiary standard whether the subject is a multinational energy company or a 12-person consumer brand.
Results are framed as methodology: evidence-based scoring modeled on the analytical approach used by MSCI and Sustainalytics. Every finding is tied to specific, citable evidence. No conjecture. No accusation. Documentation.
Materials, emissions, waste, water, energy. What the company claims versus what is documented.
Wages, working conditions, supply chain labor, community impact. Named factories or vague assurances.
Ownership structure, board oversight, reporting cadence, conflict of interest management.
How much is disclosed. Scored separately from alignment. A company can be transparent about poor performance.
The distance between what is marketed and what the evidence record supports. The core of every evaluation.
How closely a company's actual practices align with the standards it claims to meet. A company can score high on alignment while scoring low on transparency. It does the right things but doesn't document them well.
How much information a company makes publicly accessible. A company can score high on transparency while scoring low on alignment. It discloses extensively but the disclosures reveal poor performance.
Every public sustainability claim is identified, catalogued, and categorized by dimension.
Public records, certifications, reports, press coverage, and regulatory filings are gathered and classified by tier.
Each claim is measured against the evidence. The gap between what is said and what is provable is documented.
The complete evaluation is delivered with per-dimension scoring, evidence citations, and actionable recommendations.