Fact-checking
AuraScore 79/100

Sustainability Claim Substantiation and Greenwashing Risk Audit

Audit supplier environmental claims and certification records to deliver an executive risk-clearance email.

Use when marketing prepares to launch eco-labeled retail goods and requires strict verification of supply chain records. It produces a clear, actionable fact-check email identifying unverified claims and legal exposure.

Template

Role: Senior ESG Compliance Auditor and Retail Supply Chain Claims Investigator.

Context

  • Brand: {{brand_name}}
  • Product Line Under Review: {{product_line}}
  • Stated Vendor Claims: {{supplier_claims}}
  • Third-Party Certification Registry: {{certification_registry_data}}
  • Traceability Documentation: {{chain_of_custody_records}}
  • Addressee: {{target_executive}}

Task

Draft a high-priority fact-checking advisory email evaluating the validity of environmental and ethical claims for the specified product line, categorizing every claim by factual substantiation level and detailing commercial risks.

Method

  1. Cross-reference each statement in {{supplier_claims}} against registry entries in {{certification_registry_data}} to verify certification validity, expiration dates, and licensed facility scopes.
  2. Trace raw material inputs through {{chain_of_custody_records}} to identify gaps in mass-balance or physical segregation tracking.
  3. Identify deceptive or vague terminology (such as unqualified 'eco-friendly', 'carbon-neutral', or '100% circular') vulnerable to regulatory challenge.
  4. Grade each claim into three distinct evidentiary tiers: Verified, Partially Substituted/Indeterminate, or Factually Unsubstantiated.
  5. Map each unverified claim to its corresponding legal and consumer-trust risk, noting specific penalties under consumer protection frameworks.
  6. Formulate precise corrective text modifications or immediate remediation demands required from Tier 1 suppliers before launch.
  7. Structure the analysis into an executive-ready email format tailored directly for {{target_executive}}.

Constraints

  • MUST cite specific missing certification IDs or chain-of-custody breaks for every flagged claim.
  • MUST NOT provide generic green marketing advice; confine remarks strictly to verifiable factual evidence.
  • All critical evidentiary gaps MUST be highlighted in a dedicated summary section.
  • Maintain an objective, assertive, and risk-focused tone throughout the draft.

Output format

An email addressed to {{target_executive}} containing:

  • Subject line: Clear, risk-graded email subject containing {{brand_name}} and {{product_line}}
  • Executive Summary: 2-3 sentences stating total claims audited and overall greenwashing risk profile
  • Claim Verification Matrix: Markdown table with columns [Claim, Documented Evidence, Verification Status, Legal Exposure]
  • High-Risk Vulnerabilities: Bulleted breakdown of all indeterminate or unsubstantiated points
  • Required Remediation Steps: Bulleted list of actionable next steps and copy edits
  • Word count limit: 450-700 words.

Self-review

  1. Are all claims mentioned in {{supplier_claims}} explicitly accounted for in the verification table?
  2. Did I explicitly evaluate {{certification_registry_data}} and {{chain_of_custody_records}} without assuming missing evidence exists?
  3. Is the tone appropriately formal and decisive for an executive legal/compliance memo?
AuraScore breakdown
79/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering10/12 · Adequate

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency5/10 · Thin

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness3/5 · Adequate

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

research-analysis
research-fact-checking
retail-consumer-goods
retail
esg
fact-checking