How The Illumination Index Works
The Methodology
Does how a company talks about its sustainability efforts match what its own data actually shows?
This is not a rating of environmental performance. It is an audit of communicative integrity which is a distinct variable that no existing ESG framework currently measures.
About This Prototype
The Illumination Index is a prototype framework developed at the University of Oregon. The methodology has been applied to seven companies to test reliability and demonstrate the approach. Future development will focus primarily on expanding the company sets, additionally, introducing additional coders, and testing which indicators are most predictive of consumer-facing communication gaps.
Total indicators
11
Categories
2
Cohen's kappa (substantial agreement)
0.766
What Companies Say
The Process
Website sustainability pages
How the value is generated
Instagram and LinkedIn
Press Releases
CEO Letters
Checked Against
ESG and sustainability reports
Third-party audits
Court proceedings
Regulatory Findings
Produces
Illumination Index Value
0-22
Each number backed by evidence.
Illumination Index values are not derived from impressions. Every indicator is anchored to specific evidence: verbatim quotes, data calculations, and documented findings.
Owned media or articles
SBTi database records
Reliability
k = 0.766
The framework was applied to the same companies twice, seven days apart, without reference to the original results. Cohen's kappa is a statistical measure of consistency between two independent rounds of coding, returned at 0.766. This represents substantial agreement by the Landis and Koch 1977 scale. Seven of eleven indicators achieved perfect agreement.
A kappa of 0.766 in a solo-coder design, applied to indicators requiring interpretive judgment, is a defensible and reportable reliability result.
Eleven Indicators Across Two Categories
Part A: Communication Pattern Analysis - 6 indicators, maximum 12
1. Vagueness
Claims with no measurable meaning
2. Lack of quantification
Assertions without data attached
3. Selective disclosure
Selective reporting that omits unflattering numbers
4. Future deflection
Bold 2050 or future goals masking current performance
5. Third-party verification
No third-party validation of claims
6. Cross-platform inconsistency
Report vs. Instagram vs. investor materials
Each indicator scores 0 (absent), 1 (partial, mitigating factors present), or 2 (clear and systematic failure). Total max = 12.
Part B: Claims vs. Data Comparison - 5 indicators, maximum 10
1. Emissions trajectory vs. reduction claims
Are emissions actually going down?
2. Carbon neutrality / net zero claim integrity
Is the 2050 commitment backed by anything real?
3. Omission of material controversies
What didn't make it into the sustainability report?
4. ESG ratings volatility
Volatility across independent rating agencies
5. TCFD disclosure completeness
How complete is the TCFD-aligned reporting?
Scored N/A where a company makes no relevant claim (e.g. no net zero commitment). Total max = 10.
Scoring Scale
0
Not detected
1
Partially present, mitigating factors
2
Clear and systematic failure
Higher total scores = more communicative failure detected. Lower scores = greater transparency.
What Was Evaluated for Each Company
Before scoring, the same evidence set was assembled for every company:
Most recent sustainability or ESG report
Consumer-facing website and social media (Instagram, LinkedIn, website sustainability pages)
SBTi database records
Net zero trackers and third-party carbon disclosure records
Regulatory findings, ad bans, and legal proceedings in the public record
Scores are not derived from impressions. Every indicator is anchored
to specific evidence: verbatim quotes, data calculations, documented findings.