# | Company | Buy Side Availability | Digital Accessibility | Governance | Relevance | Supply Side Digitization | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
151 |  | BIFMA | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.2 / 5 |
152 |  | BIODEGRADABLE PRODUCTS INSTITUTE (BPI) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 2.2 / 5 |
153 |  | California Green Business Network | 2.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.2 / 5 |
154 |  | CALIFORNIA SUSTAINABLE WINEGROWING ALLIANCE (CSWA) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.2 / 5 |
155 |  | CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION AND LABELING | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.2 / 5 |
156 |  | Center for Resource Solutions | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.2 / 5 |
157 |  | CINDE | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 2.2 / 5 |
158 |  | Compost Quality Assurance Organisation | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.2 / 5 |
159 |  | COTTON AUSTRALIA | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.2 / 5 |
160 |  | Credo | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 2.2 / 5 |
How We Rate Standard Owners
One of the biggest challenges in the sustainability industry is the need for more normalized data on sustainable procurement. Today, there are more standards that define sustainability than consumers can understand. At CommonShare we are launching the world’s most comprehensive system for the comparative evaluation of Standard Owners' to make it easier for brands and consumers to understand which standards are relevant and worth incorporating into their sustainable procurement plan. We are not interested in evaluating the sustainability characteristics, i.e., which Standard Owner represents sustainability better, but rather the weight they play in sustainable procurement and their governance implications.