The Greenwashing Files · Part 3 of 3
Greenwashing isn’t just a marketing problem. It’s a data problem. It exists — and persists — because most investors have no way to see past the surface. The fund name sounds right. The sustainability report looks thorough. The ESG label is right there on the tin. But none of that tells you what the companies you own are actually doing.
The only real antidote to greenwashing is transparency. Not a better label. Not a stricter filter. Transparency — the kind where you can see the data, understand where it comes from, and follow the logic all the way back to the source.
That’s what this piece is about. And it’s what Ziggma is built around.
Think about what makes greenwashing possible in the first place. It’s not that investors don’t care. It’s that the information they’re given doesn’t let them see clearly.
A fund label tells you what the fund wants you to think. A sustainability report tells you what the company chose to disclose. An ESG score tells you how well a company manages risk to itself — processed through a methodology you didn’t choose, built on assumptions you can’t interrogate, arriving as a single number with no visible workings.
At every step, something is hidden. Sometimes deliberately. Often just structurally — because that’s how the system was built.
The result is that even investors who care deeply about where their money goes are flying partially blind. They’re making decisions based on signals that were designed, at least in part, to be persuasive rather than transparent.
The fix isn’t to trust the signals more. It’s to replace them with something you can actually see.
Most impact investing tools give you a verdict. Ziggma gives you the evidence.
When you look at a company's impact profile in Ziggma, you don't just see an overall Impact Score. You see the four sub-scores — Climate Action, Resource Use, Fair Labor, and Accountability — that build up to it. And underneath those, you see the actual data points that feed the assessment. Not summaries. Not spin. Numbers.
These aren't narrative claims. They're measurable facts. And the difference between seeing a score and seeing the data behind it is the difference between trusting someone's conclusion and being able to reach your own.
That's what makes a portfolio genuinely greenwashing-free. Not the label it carries. The clarity of the view you have into it.
A score is only as trustworthy as the data behind it — and the methodology used to build it. That's why Ziggma is explicit about both.
The impact data powering Ziggma's scores comes from ACA Ethos, one of the most rigorous impact data providers available. ACA Ethos analyzes companies across around 600 metrics and more than 80 impact topics — covering everything from carbon emissions and water use to labor rights, political lobbying, and data privacy.
What sets ACA Ethos apart isn't just the depth of the data. It's the transparency of the methodology. Their approach is publicly documented — you can read exactly how companies are assessed, what data sources are used, and how scores are constructed. There's no black box. No proprietary algorithm that produces a number and asks you to trust it. The logic is visible, and Ziggma links directly to it.
That matters for one simple reason: greenwashing thrives in opacity. When a methodology can't be examined, it can't be challenged — and claims that can't be challenged can mean almost anything. ACA Ethos's approach is built to be interrogated. So is Ziggma's.
Here's what the chain actually looks like when you use Ziggma to assess a holding:
ACA Ethos collects and verifies data across ~600 metrics for each company — drawing on company disclosures, regulatory filings, NGO reports, and third-party sources. This is the foundation. It's specific, sourced, and updated regularly.
ACA Ethos applies a transparent, publicly documented methodology to convert that data into scores across four dimensions: Climate Action, Resource Use, Fair Labor, and Accountability. The methodology is available to read — you can understand exactly what a score of 72 on Fair Labor means and how it was arrived at.
Ziggma takes those scores and data points and makes them visible in your portfolio context — at the individual holding level and rolled up across your whole portfolio. You see the overall Impact Score, the four sub-scores, and the specific data points underneath: renewable energy share, waste recycling rate, employee satisfaction, CEO pay ratio, and more.
With that data in front of you, you're not relying on a fund name or a marketing claim. You're looking at the actual picture — and making your own call. That's what it means to invest free of greenwashing.
Once you can see clearly, you can act. Ziggma's Optimizer lets you improve your portfolio's impact profile without sacrificing returns — identifying swaps that raise your scores across Climate Action, Resource Use, Fair Labor, and Accountability while keeping your overall allocation intact.
The data points Ziggma surfaces aren't just interesting. Each one does specific work in cutting through greenwashing's most common tactics.
Cuts through: Vague climate commitments and net-zero pledges with no current progress. If a company claims to be a climate leader but 8% of its energy comes from renewables, that number tells a clearer story than any pledge.
Cuts through: The gap between a company's sustainability report and its actual resource use. A strong climate score alongside near-zero waste recycling is a signal that the picture is incomplete.
Cuts through: Fair Labor claims that live in annual reports but aren't independently verified. Employee satisfaction data from third-party sources is harder to manage than a well-written policy document.
Cuts through: Accountability and governance claims. A company that talks extensively about its social responsibility while maintaining a 500:1 pay ratio is showing you something its sustainability report doesn't say.
Most platforms in this space make a promise: trust us, we've done the work, here's the score. Ziggma makes a different one: here's the data, here's where it comes from, here's the methodology — now you decide.
That's not a small distinction. It's the entire design philosophy. Because we believe that genuinely helping investors build greenwashing-free portfolios means giving them the tools to see clearly — not replacing one set of claims with another.
Greenwashing has always depended on the investor not being able to look too closely. Ziggma is built for investors who want to look as closely as they like.
A standard ESG score measures how well a company manages environmental, social, and governance risks to its own financial performance — and the methodology is often opaque. Ziggma surfaces impact data from ACA Ethos, which measures what companies actually do to the world, across four dimensions and hundreds of underlying data points. Crucially, the methodology is publicly documented — you can read exactly how scores are built, not just trust the output.
Ziggma's impact data is powered by ACA Ethos, one of the most rigorous impact data providers available. ACA Ethos analyzes companies across around 600 metrics and more than 80 impact topics, drawing on company disclosures, regulatory filings, NGO reports, and third-party sources. Their methodology is publicly documented and available to read on Ziggma's impact data page.
Beyond the overall Impact Score and four sub-scores, Ziggma surfaces the actual data points underlying the assessment — including a company's share of energy from renewables, waste recycling rate, average employee satisfaction rating, and CEO to median employee pay ratio, among many others. These are measurable facts, not narrative claims.
Greenwashing thrives in opacity. When a methodology can't be examined, claims can mean almost anything — and investors have no way to distinguish genuine performance from good marketing. Transparency — knowing what data was used, how it was processed, and what it actually shows — is the only reliable defense. It's why Ziggma is explicit about its data source, links to the methodology, and shows you the underlying data points rather than just a verdict.
Yes. Ziggma surfaces impact scores for both individual stocks and ETFs. For funds, you see an aggregate Impact Score reflecting the underlying holdings — which lets you assess whether a fund's label actually matches its content. An ETF that scores 48 on Accountability tells you something its name doesn't.
Yes. ACA Ethos publishes its methodology, and Ziggma links directly to it from the impact data page. You can read exactly how companies are assessed across each of the four dimensions — what data sources are used, how metrics are weighted, and what the scores mean. That level of documentation is unusual in this space, and it's a deliberate part of how both ACA Ethos and Ziggma approach the problem of greenwashing.
← Part 1
Why greenwashing is harder to spot than ever
← Part 2
How to spot greenwashing in your portfolio right now
The Greenwashing Files — Complete ✓
The Greenwashing Files — Complete
Connect your holdings and get a clear, data-backed view of what the companies you own are really doing — free to start, no credit card needed.
Free to get started. No credit card required.
How to actually move the needle. Why public markets are where real impact happens, and how to act on it.
No spam. No newsletter — we'll only reach out for major updates.
