Baldwinson Ethical Technologies (BET)
An ethical accountability system for evaluating corporate conduct in technology.
Baldwinson Ethical Technologies (BET) documents and applies a published framework for evaluating, documenting, and scoring corporate behavior within the BET Index.
Why this exists
Infrastructure decisions have ethical impact
Engineers and technical decision-makers are routinely asked to choose infrastructure providers whose platforms shape labor conditions, surveillance capacity, and civil rights. In many cases, these decisions are made without access to a clear and trustworthy assessment of the companies' ethical track records.
Existing indexes are not built for operational decisions
Existing ethical indexes emphasize disclosure, certifications, or self-reported commitments. In practice, this forces teams to choose between accepting opaque risk or conducting months of independent research that few organizations have the time or resources to perform.
BET provides decision-grade ethical evaluation
BET exists to provide a evaluation of technology infrastructure providers based on documented historical behavior rather than short-term compliance or self-reporting. The goal is not to persuade teams to care about ethics, but to make ethical consequences visible, comparable, and difficult to ignore at the point of decision.
First Publication — Q1 2026
Our inaugural evaluation of major technology companies is currently in development. Join the waitlist to receive the first publication when it is released.
Charter
Baldwinson Ethical Technologies evaluates technology companies based on long-term ethical performance, not short-term compliance.
The project exists to provide technology decision-makers with a transparent, non-gameable assessment of institutional behavior over time.
Why a new approach is necessary
Existing ethical indexes reward disclosure over behavior. A company can publish extensive sustainability reports while maintaining harmful practices indefinitely.
Short-term remediation is treated as equivalent to long-term accountability. Organizations that repeatedly cause harm and apologize receive the same treatment as those that prevent harm in the first place.
Relative scoring masks absolute harm. Being "better than peers" in a harmful industry is not the same as being ethical.
Executive incentive cycles—typically 2–4 years—structurally discourage decisions with ethical payoffs beyond that horizon.
Governing principles
Time-Weighted Accountability
Ethical harm compounds; recovery is gradual. A five-year fade period applies to significant violations.
Evidence Over Disclosure
Policies do not offset outcomes. Evaluation is based on documented behavior, not stated intentions.
Non-Relative Scoring
No "best of a bad category." Scores reflect absolute ethical standing, not relative industry position.
Independence From Rated Entities
Companies cannot apply for favorable treatment. Evaluation criteria are public; influence is not for sale.
Human Rights, Including Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Violations of internationally recognized human rights—including the targeted suppression, discrimination, or endangerment of people based on sexual orientation or gender identity—are treated as high-severity ethical failures with extended recovery horizons, reflecting their disproportionate harm and historical targeting.
Methodology overview
Evaluations cover labor practices, governance structure, data handling, environmental impact, and systemic effects on markets and society.
Time decay applies to both positive and negative events. Recent behavior weighs more heavily, but significant violations remain visible for extended periods.
Evidence standards require documented, verifiable sources. Self-reported data is noted but weighted accordingly.
Registry, scoring, and certification
Registry — Self-attestation. Organizations may register their stated commitments. This is informational only.
Scoring — Independent evaluation. BET assesses organizations based on documented evidence, without their participation or consent.
Governance and independence
Baldwinson Ethical Technologies operates as an independent project with nonprofit registration pending.
Conflict-of-interest rules prohibit evaluation of organizations with which principals have financial relationships.
Funding is structured to prevent influence from rated entities. Methodology and governance documents are public.