METHODOLOGY

How a BDS-1000 score is made

The BDS-1000 is a consumer-awareness tool, not a legal liability framework. It asks one question: is a company's relationship with Israel's occupation material and significant enough that a consumer or investor would reasonably want to know about it? Every claim that feeds a score is cited to public evidence - 16,196 sources across 183 companies.

1 · Four evidence-only audits

Every company is investigated across four independent domains. The audits contain evidence only - no scores, no conclusions - and every factual claim carries an end-noted citation. Where we searched and found nothing, the audit says "No public evidence identified": gaps are shown, not padded.

MilitaryDefence contracting and procurement, dual-use and tactical products, supply to defence primes, base sustainment, munitions, export licences.

DigitalCloud and AI infrastructure serving state or military bodies, surveillance technology, data exposure and sovereignty, Israeli tech acquisitions and R&D.

EconomicOperations and investment in Israel, settlement sourcing and supply chains, financing the state, retail presence, revenue significance.

PoliticalPublic statements and lobbying, donations - including to military-welfare bodies, executive and board affiliations, suppression of employee or consumer dissent.

2 · Scoring - deterministic, then human-vetted

Each domain receives three component scores from the audit evidence: Impact (what the company does), Magnitude (how big it is - to the company or to Israel, whichever is higher), and Proximity (how direct the relationship is). They combine as:

V = I × min(M / 7, 1) × min(P / 7, 1)

The four domain scores then produce the composite BDS-1000 score, weighting the dominant domain and discounting the rest:

BRS = ((V_MAX + 0.2 × Sum_OTHERS) ÷ 16) × 1000

Scores are computed deterministically from the vetted component values - the arithmetic is checked by validation scripts, not trusted to judgment. Current method version: V4. Under V4 every listed company's scores passed a per-domain human review (evidence, scope, currency, completeness, and placement checked domain by domain) against a vetted precedent library before being accepted. Companies whose dossiers have not yet been through V4 vetting are not listed.

3 · Tiers

Tier	Range	Reading	Companies listed
A Extreme	800–1000	Core, systemic involvement in the machinery of occupation	10
B Severe	600–799	Severe, sustained material support in at least one domain	25
C High	400–599	Significant documented involvement	37
D Moderate	200–399	Moderate or indirect involvement	43
E Limited	0–199	Limited documented nexus	68

4 · Evidence standards

Source hierarchy. Court and treaty-body findings (ICJ, ICC) rank highest, then UN documentation (the OHCHR settlement database; Special Rapporteur report A/HRC/59/23), then specialist investigations (Who Profits, AFSC, Amnesty, HRW, Al-Haq, SOMO, DBIO), then corporate primary records (SEC filings, tenders, export licences), then financial press. When an NGO report names a company, we follow its citations into the primary documents rather than paraphrasing the NGO.
Every claim cited. Claims that cannot be cited are marked unresolved or removed. Dossiers carry their full end notes; each citation marker on this site opens the source in place.
Absence is recorded. A searched issue with no public support is written up as "No public evidence identified" - silence is data, and it keeps scores honest in both directions.
Counter-arguments included. Each dossier presents the strongest available case for the company alongside the evidence against it.
Accuracy over maximalism. The rubric's first principle: do not inflate weak relationships to reach a band; do not deflate obvious ones on a technicality.

5 · Updates and corrections

Every dossier shows its last-updated date. The index is regenerated from the underlying research corpus, so corrections propagate to every affected page. If you believe a cited fact is wrong or out of date, contact us with the claim and the source - corrections are reviewed against the same evidence standards above.