The Circularity Score isn’t based on material composition alone. It combines several factors — material origin, unrecoverable waste, and how long and intensively the product is used — and the relative weight of durability practices depends on the product category. So two products can share a very similar bill of materials and still land on different scores.
Part of the reason is the Utility factor: how long and intensively a product is used is expressed as a ratio to the industry average for that type of product. A product with no declared durability or use-extension practices is scored at that average — not penalized, just not boosted. Declaring practices like repairable construction, timeless design, or a brand take-back program raises this ratio, which in turn raises the overall score, independently of material composition.
For example (illustrative only, not based on real BCome data):
A product using 60% recycled polyester but with no reparability features and no take-back program declared can score lower overall than a product using only 20% recycled content that offers a repair service, uses timeless styling, and belongs to a brand with a collection program — because durability and end-of-life potential are also part of the score, not just feedstock.
This is why a product that “looks” more sustainable on one dimension — like recycled content — doesn’t always outscore another: the Circularity Score reflects the full picture across Materials, Durability, Recyclability, and Collection & end-of-life, visible as separate columns in your dashboard, not a single material claim.