Chapter 1: Scope
ICO Std 2002:2026 — Chapter 1
1.1 General Scope
This International Standard specifies the general requirements for ranking methodology applicable to any organisation that designs, implements, publishes, or verifies ranking systems. It establishes a universal methodological framework that is domain-independent, ensuring that all ranking systems — regardless of their subject matter, geographic scope, or organisational context — conform to consistent principles of rigour, transparency, and reproducibility.
1.1.1 Ranking Systems Covered
This standard applies to ranking systems that produce ordinal, interval, or composite assessments of entities within a defined population. The following categories of ranking systems are within the scope of this standard:
a) Product quality rankings : Rankings that assess and compare the quality attributes of consumer goods, industrial products, or digital products, including but not limited to safety, performance, durability, and user satisfaction.
b) Brand value rankings : Rankings that assess and compare the monetary or strategic value of brands, including corporate brands, product brands, and personal brands, consistent with the principles of ISO 20671 and ISO 10668.
c) Individual influence rankings : Rankings that assess and compare the influence, impact, or reputation of individuals, including public figures, thought leaders, and professionals.
d) City image rankings : Rankings that assess and compare the image, competitiveness, livability, or attractiveness of cities and urban areas.
e) Cultural heritage rankings : Rankings that assess and compare the significance, condition, or preservation status of cultural heritage, including tangible and intangible cultural heritage, consistent with the principles of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
f) Restaurant and gastronomy rankings : Rankings that assess and compare the quality, creativity, or dining experience of restaurants and gastronomic establishments.
g) Intangible asset rankings : Rankings that assess and compare the value or significance of intangible assets, including intellectual property, goodwill, and digital assets.
h) Economy and industry rankings : Rankings that assess and compare economic performance, industrial competitiveness, or sectoral development at national, regional, or organisational levels.
i) ESG and sustainability rankingsESG: Rankings that assess and compare environmental, social, and governance performance or sustainability outcomes, aligned with the objectives of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Note: The categories listed above are not exhaustive. A ranking system that does not fall within any of the listed categories but produces ordinal or composite assessments of entities is also within the scope of this standard, provided it meets the applicability criteria defined in 1.1.2 and 1.1.3.
1.1.2 Domains of Application
This standard is applicable to ranking systems operating in the following domains:
— Commercial domain : Rankings produced by or for commercial entities, including market research firms, industry associations, and media organisations.
— Academic and research domain : Rankings produced by or for academic and research institutions, including university rankings, research output assessments, and scholarly impact indices.
— Cultural and creative domain : Rankings produced by or for cultural institutions, creative industries, and heritage organisations.
— Public service and governance domain : Rankings produced by or for governmental bodies, international organisations, and public interest entities, including public service performance assessments and governance quality indices.
Note: A ranking system may span multiple domains of application. In such cases, all applicable requirements of this standard shall be satisfied.
1.1.3 Organisational Applicability
This standard is applicable to the following categories of organisations involved in the ranking ecosystem:
a) Ranking entities : Organisations that initiate, design, and publish ranking systems (see 3.1.8).
b) Executing parties : Organisations that carry out data collection, processing, or analysis on behalf of a ranking entity, whether as contractors, subcontractors, or collaborative partners.
c) Data providers : Organisations or individuals that supply data used as input to a ranking system, whether directly or through intermediary platforms.
d) Auditing and certification bodies : Independent organisations that assess the conformance of a ranking system with the requirements of this standard, consistent with the principles of ISO/IEC 17021.
Note: An organisation may fulfil multiple roles simultaneously (e.g., a ranking entity may also serve as the executing party). In such cases, the requirements applicable to each role shall be satisfied independently.
1.2 Inclusions
This standard includes the following:
1.2.1 Core Methodology Requirements
Chapters 4 through 9 establish the core methodological requirements applicable to all ranking systems, covering:
— principles governing the design and operation of ranking systems (Chapter 4);
— indicator system design and selection (Chapter 5);
— weighting rules and procedures (Chapter 6);
— data collection and quality requirements (Chapter 7);
— scoring and ranking computation procedures (Chapter 8); and
— publication and transparency requirements (Chapter 9).
1.2.2 Extension Framework
The extension modules (SE-01 through SE-10) provide domain-specific requirements that supplement the core methodology requirements for particular categories of ranking systems. Each extension module:
— specifies indicators and data sources applicable to its domain;
— defines domain-specific weighting rules and scoring procedures; and
— provides domain-specific examples and guidance.
Conformance with an extension module is required only when a ranking system falls within the corresponding domain (see 1.4.2).
1.2.3 Verification and Audit Provisions
Chapters 10 and 11 establish the verification, audit, and compliance provisions, covering:
— audit and traceability requirements (Chapter 10); and
— conformance assessment and compliance procedures (Chapter 11).
1.2.4 Annexes
This standard includes the following annexes:
— Annex A (informative): IREG Berlin Principles Mapping — detailed mapping between the IREG Berlin Principles and ICO Std 2002 provisions;
— Annex B (informative): ISO Standards Alignment — systematic alignment with ISO standards and terminology cross-references;
— Annex C (informative): Application Examples — illustrative examples applying the standard across different ranking domains;
— Annex D (normative): Rules of Procedure for the Ranking Methodology Technical Committee (RMTC) — governance framework governing the composition, decision-making, and operations of the RMTC, including the RMTC Code of Conduct and Appeal Handling Procedure.
The normative annexes (Annex D) form an integral part of this standard and shall be complied with by any organisation claiming conformance. The informative annexes (Annexes A, B, and C) provide supplementary guidance and context but do not impose normative requirements.
1.3 Exclusions
1.3.1 Out of Scope
The following are explicitly outside the scope of this standard:
a) Domain-specific indicator systems: This standard does not prescribe the specific indicators, data sources, or scoring procedures for any particular domain. Domain-specific requirements are defined in the extension modules (SE-01 to SE-10), which are separate from the core standard.
b) Legal and regulatory requirements: This standard does not replace, override, or substitute for any legal or regulatory requirements applicable to ranking systems in any jurisdiction. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations remains the responsibility of the ranking entity.
c) Subjective evaluation of ranked entities: This standard does not provide criteria for judging the inherent worth, merit, or value of ranked entities. It addresses only the methodological integrity of the ranking process, not the substantive correctness of any particular ranking outcome.
1.3.2 Non-prescriptive Areas
The following areas are not prescribed by this standard but may be addressed in supplementary guidance:
— the commercial model or business structure of ranking entities;
— the specific software tools or platforms used to implement ranking computations; and
— the design of user interfaces for presenting ranking results.
1.4 Conformance Targets
1.4.1 Full Conformance
A ranking system achieves full conformance with this standard when it satisfies all of the following conditions:
a) it satisfies all normative requirements of the core layer (Chapters 1–11);
b) it satisfies all normative requirements of every applicable extension module; and
c) its conformance has been verified through an independent audit conducted in accordance with Chapter 10.
A fully conformant ranking system may claim conformance as follows:
“This ranking system conforms to ICO Std 2002:2026 (Full Conformance).”
1.4.2 Partial Conformance
A ranking system achieves partial conformance with this standard when it satisfies all normative requirements of the core layer (Chapters 1–11) but does not satisfy all normative requirements of an applicable extension module, or when its conformance has not been verified through an independent audit as specified in Chapter 10.
A partially conformant ranking system shall identify the specific requirements that are not satisfied and provide a justification for each non-conformance. It may claim conformance as follows:
“This ranking system conforms to ICO Std 2002:2026 (Partial Conformance). Non-conformant requirements: [list].”
Note: Partial conformance is not equivalent to non-conformance. It acknowledges that a ranking system satisfies the universal core requirements while recognising that domain-specific or verification requirements may not yet be fully met. Ranking entities are encouraged to pursue full conformance over time.
Note: This chapter is part of ICO Std 2002 (Tianji Ranking Methodology Standard). The provisions of clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 are normative.