Food & Beverage · US · tysonfoods.com
A written explanation for this grade has not been published yet. The criteria below show what the score rests on.
Every pillar, criterion by criterion — with the rubric level behind each score.
Serious labor concerns or repeated unresolved criticism from credible sources.
General responsible-sourcing claims without useful specifics.
Basic commitments or generic code-of-conduct statements only.
Same category, higher grade — Food & Beverage brands that rate better than Tyson Foods.
You represent Tyson Foods? Corrections and new evidence are re-scored by the same methodology — write to privacy@ethica.cc
Weak or unclear external verification; mostly self-reported claims.
Serious or repeated environmental concerns from credible sources, largely unresolved.
General sustainability claims with little concrete information.
Very general or weak commitments with no measurable structure.
Weak or unclear external support; mostly self-reported claims.
Strong evidence of serious harmful animal practices or unresolved high-risk exposure.
No meaningful public animal welfare policy found.
No credible independent animal-welfare evidence found.
Minimal disclosure; broad statements without useful detail.
Serious or repeated ethical/regulatory concerns from credible sources.
Very basic or generic ethics statements only.
Weak, vague, or inconsistent responses to ethical concerns.
The grade says what the evidence shows; this says how much evidence stands behind it — five weighted dimensions.
A guardrail capped confidence at 55/100 — the evidence base is too thin or one-sided to score higher.