Their reputation becomes yours the moment you sign. Measure it first.
Kavuka Reputation Score quantifies the reputational risk of any person or company in a graded, explainable and monitored score — lawsuits, sanctions and watchlists, classified adverse media and sensitive ownership ties synthesized into a single metric, with the dossier of signals that explains it.
- Minutes
- score with full dossier
- Lawsuits + sanctions + media + ties
- in a single metric
- Continuous
- reputation monitoring
- Audit trail
- per documented decision
Risk Scoring engine in production cross-referencing court records, sanctions, adverse media and ownership graph — thousands of signals per query, with an explainable dossier and a full audit trail per decision.
The association takes minutes to sign and years to clean up — and today you decide in the dark.
The 20-minute Google search
Image due diligence is a Google search: 20 minutes, no standard, no trail. The influencer and the brand ambassador come in unverified; the event guest turns into a crisis.
The partner who blew up later
A sponsorship or partnership signed with someone who blows up the next month — the old lawsuit, the tie nobody saw, the archived scandal. The brand lent out without due diligence.
Who approved this?
Without an objective criterion, every approval is an opinion; without a score, there is no cut-off rule; without a trail, the post-crisis question has no documented answer and each approval becomes a personal bet by whoever signed.
Cost The average reputational crisis burns cancelled contracts, a scrapped campaign, crisis management and the full attention of the C-level for weeks. The asymmetry is brutal: the association takes minutes to sign and years to clean up — and the absence of a process turns each approval into a personal bet by whoever signed.
From their reputation to your decision, with a trail.
- 01
Query
Enter the person or company; the score comes with its dossier of signals — lawsuits, sanctions, classified media and the ownership graph.
- 02
Decide
The score becomes policy: bands to approve, deepen (escalate to Due Diligence) or decline.
- 03
Contract
Close with informed clauses — the dossier arms the legal team with each signal and its source.
- 04
Monitor
After signing, the alert flags when the associate’s reputation changes — before the public cancellation.
The five dimensions behind the number
A single query cross-references court records, sanctions, media and the ownership graph and returns a graded, explainable and comparable score — with every signal visible in the dossier.
Lawsuits
Volume, nature, party, recurrence and recency
Sanctions and lists
CEIS, CNEP, dirty list, OFAC/UN, debarment
Media and perception
Adverse media by severity, outlet and recency
Ownership ties
Graph of partners, companies and sensitive ties
Conduct patterns
Complaints at scale and litigious break-ups
Explainable dossier
Each signal with source and classification
Graded score
Comparable bands with cut-off policy
Continuous monitoring
Alert when the associate’s reputation changes
Who decides with Kavuka Reputation Score
Sponsorships & Influencers
Influencers, ambassadors, athletes and celebrities verified before the contract — and monitored throughout the campaign.
Alliances & Partners
The reputational layer on top of KYP: the brand lent only to those who will not stain it.
Executives & Boards
The image dimension of C-level diligence, bridging KYE and Due Diligence.
High-Profile Clients & M&A
Private banking and premium services; and the reputational score of the target and founders as a Due Diligence input.
Measuring reputation without violating rights
Reputation Score was designed to ground brand decisions on a lawful basis, not to judge people in the dark. Every signal is traceable to its source, and the media classification separates established fact from opinion.
- Public and legally accessible sources: court records, sanctions, official lists, media and ownership bases.
- Documented legitimate purpose for processing (data-protection law), with the subject informed per the client’s policy.
- Fact vs. opinion distinction in media classification: severity, outlet and recency weighted and visible.
- A dossier that records the basis of each signal: the decision-maker sees the why of the score, not just the number.
- A full audit trail per decision — score, signals and rationale documented — and encryption in transit and at rest.
We swapped the Google search for a score with a dossier. The partner with a recurring lawsuit never even reached the contract table.
Monitoring flagged the ambassador’s adverse media three days before it hit the headlines. We paused the campaign in time.
When the board asked “who approved this?”, the answer was a document: the score, the signals and the policy applied.
Ready to measure the reputation of whoever will represent your brand?
In 15 minutes you run the score of a real name, see the dossier of signals and the decision policy in action.
- For businesses only. No purchase commitment.
- Data used solely for commercial contact.
- Enterprise leads answered within 1 business day.
What Reputation Score is and why it exists
Reputation Score is the quantification of the reputational and integrity risk of a person or company: the synthesis, into a graded and explainable score, of signals today assessed by eye — lawsuits (nature, party, recurrence), sanctions and lists, adverse media (with severity and recency classification), sensitive ownership ties, presence in scandals and patterns of litigiousness. If a Credit Score answers "will they pay?", Reputation Score answers "does this association stain my brand?" — the question of marketing, partnerships, sponsorships, executive hiring and acceptance of high-profile clients.
The product exists because reputational risk is today the least instrumented of corporate risks — assessed by "Google search" and individual judgment, with no standard, no trail, no comparability. The internal problem is the brutal asymmetry: the association takes minutes to sign and years to clean up. An avoidable crisis burns cancelled contracts, scrapped campaigns, crisis management and the full attention of the C-level for weeks — and, without a process, it turns each approval into a personal bet by whoever signed.
The score is built on five dimensions. The judicial one weighs volume, nature (criminal, repeat labor defendant, misconduct), party, recurrence and recency. Sanctions and lists check CEIS, CNEP, the dirty list, OFAC/UN and debarment — presence and history. Media and perception classify adverse media by severity, outlet and recency, with association to scandals. Ties map, in the ownership graph, partners, companies and sensitive relationships (PEPs, sanctioned, investigated). And conduct captures patterns: consumer complaints at scale, litigious break-ups and the track record with prior brands. Each score comes with the dossier of signals that explains it — because the number alone does not sustain a brand decision.
The category is practically ownerless in Brazil. The global state of the art covers the extremes — adverse media and sanctions data (Dow Jones, LexisNexis) on one side, brand monitoring and social listening on the other, crisis consultancies in the middle — but the score does not exist: the standardized, graded and comparable metric of the reputational risk of a specific person or company. The lesson of the EcoVadis precedent is clear: whoever creates the metric defines the category. That is why Reputation Score is born with three principles — an explainable dossier behind the number, continuous monitoring as recurring revenue (reputation changes), and processing over public and lawful sources, with a documented legitimate purpose and the distinction between fact and opinion in media classification. The result: associations decided with criteria, avoidable crises avoided, and the trail that answers "who approved this?" before the question even exists.
What makes up the Reputation Score?
Five dimensions: lawsuits (nature, party, recurrence), public sanctions and lists, classified adverse media (severity, outlet, recency), sensitive ownership ties and conduct patterns. Each score comes with the dossier of signals that explains it.
What is the difference from Background Check?
Background Check delivers the structured investigation; Reputation Score delivers the metric: the graded, comparable synthesis, with a cut-off rule and monitoring — built for brand and association decisions, not operational hiring.
Isn’t adverse media subjective?
The classification separates established fact from opinion, weighs severity, source and recency, and each signal stays visible in the dossier — the decision-maker sees the why of the score, not just the number.
Does it work for influencers and creators?
It is the central marketing use case: the score before the contract and monitoring during the campaign — the alert arrives before the public cancellation.
Is it compliant with data-protection law?
Yes: public and legally accessible sources, a documented legitimate purpose, and the subject may be informed per the client’s policy. The dossier records the basis of each signal.
Can I monitor reputation after signing the contract?
Yes. Continuous monitoring re-evaluates the profile and triggers alerts when the associate’s reputation changes — new lawsuits, adverse media, sanctions — usually before the issue becomes a public headline.
How does the score connect with Due Diligence and KYP?
Reputation Score is the entry metric and the cut-off rule; when a band requires deepening, it escalates to Due Diligence. Over partners, it acts as the reputational layer of KYP. The solutions complement each other on the Kavuka platform.
Let's talk
Your next high-impact decision starts with the right data.
Talk to a GUÉP specialist and find where applied intelligence creates the most value in your operation.