SEERO methodology, explained

How to read a My Treats profile.

A My Treats profile is an evidence-based, point-in-time assessment of one restaurant. Six independent dimensions, scored conservatively against explicit evidence standards, and condensed into a single Planet rating you can read at a glance.

SEERO
Starting · Engaged · Endorsed · Recognised · Outstanding

This is not a critic's review.

It is a sustainability assessment. It does not evaluate food quality, service, or value. It evaluates evidence.

A · What this is

An evidence-based, point-in-time assessment.

My Treats helps diners identify restaurants with credible practice on locality, seasonality, waste, animal sourcing, social impact, and plant-forward cooking. Each profile is built from publicly available sources and, where provided, material supplied by the restaurant itself.

The assessment is structured around SEERO, the scoring framework used by My Treats. SEERO evaluates six independent dimensions of practice (D1 to D6), scored from 1 to 5 against explicit evidence standards. A weighted average produces an overall score; combined with dimension coverage and any third-party certifications, it derives a Planet rating from 1 to 5.

B · The six SEERO dimensions

Six dimensions, scored independently.

Each dimension uses six engagement levels. Below scale first, then Level 1 to Level 5. Scoring is conservative: when evidence supports either of two levels, the lower one is assigned. Below scale means no credible engagement and is omitted from the consumer-facing breakdown; it counts as zero in the SEERO weighted average.

D1

Local and direct sourcing

Extent to which key ingredients come from traceable local suppliers rather than anonymous wholesale relationships.

  • Below scaleNo traceable local sourcing. No named suppliers, no local language on menu or website, no incidental local references in any channel.
  • Level 1Passing local language only: a single regional reference, a country-of-origin label on a dish, or a generic "local market" mention, without making local sourcing a stated kitchen value and without naming any producer.
  • Level 2Vague, unsubstantiated claims (for example, "fresh ingredients", "locally inspired"). Local sourcing positioned as a kitchen value but nothing concrete is said about it.
  • Level 3At least one named, traceable local supplier; roughly 30 to 50 per cent of key categories show local or regional origin.
  • Level 4Multiple named, traceable suppliers across several categories. Roughly 60 to 80 per cent demonstrably local. Direct producer relationships evident.
  • Level 5Near-complete local sourcing across all categories, with named, independently verifiable suppliers and third-party certification or editorial validation.
D2

Seasonal cooking

How far the menu and kitchen practice follow seasonal produce availability.

  • Below scaleFixed year-round menu, no seasonal language, no rotation, no seasonal specials.
  • Level 1Minimum seasonal engagement: occasional seasonal items, daily or weekly specials drawn from seasonal produce, or visible occasional rotation in part of the menu, but no structured seasonal programme.
  • Level 2Decorative seasonal language but largely static menu. Seasonality is mentioned, not practised.
  • Level 3Regular seasonal updates to part of the menu, at minimum quarterly. Some dishes clearly built around seasonal produce.
  • Level 4Menu largely follows seasonal availability; most dishes change with the season. Restaurant communicates seasonality as a guiding principle.
  • Level 5Kitchen organised around seasonal produce as a founding principle. Menu may change weekly or daily; chef publicly associated with the seasonal ethos; specialist guides confirm the practice.
D3

Low waste and circular practices

Three sub-areas: food waste reduction; plastic and packaging; energy.

  • Below scaleNo mention of waste, recycling, plastic, energy, or any circular practice in any channel.
  • Level 1Generic sustainability claims with no specifics ("we care about the environment"). No practice, partner, or measure named anywhere.
  • Level 2Generic environmental language plus a single isolated practice referenced but not specified (for example, "we compost", "we recycle"). Practice exists in copy but is not concrete enough to verify.
  • Level 3At least one specific, concrete practice named: composting partner, plastic elimination referenced, fermentation or nose-to-tail mentioned, or a food-waste organisation named. Largely self-declared.
  • Level 4Several specific practices across at least two of the three sub-areas. Named partners or technologies. Some independent corroboration.
  • Level 5Documented, measurable practices across all three sub-areas. Zero-waste or near-zero-waste operation. Named, verifiable partnerships. Independent recognition: certification, press, or award.
D4

Sustainable animal products

Origin, welfare, and sustainability of meat, poultry, fish, and seafood. Marked n/a for fully plant-based restaurants.

  • Below scaleUntraced animal products with no welfare, origin, or sourcing signal in any channel. No named supplier, no certification, no descriptive language about sourcing or welfare.
  • Level 1Vague claims, no substantiation ("quality meat", "responsibly sourced fish", "ethically reared"). No named supplier, no certification, no specifics about welfare or fishing methods.
  • Level 2Vague claim plus a partial sourcing signal: a named region without a named supplier ("Dutch beef from regional farms"), a named species or cut without a verifiable producer, or an informal "free-range" used without certification.
  • Level 3Partial traceability for some categories. At least one animal product has a named, traceable supplier with some welfare or sustainability evidence.
  • Level 4Strong traceability and welfare evidence across most categories. Named, verifiable suppliers. Welfare standards described and corroborated. Seafood from MSC, ASC, or equivalent.
  • Level 5Exemplary sourcing with full traceability and independent validation. All animal products have named, independently verifiable suppliers with documented welfare and sustainability standards. Certifications held. Deliberate reduction of animal-product volume in favour of quality.
D5

Social impact

Three sub-areas: fair employment; community engagement; cause support or social-supplier sourcing.

  • Below scaleNo social or community signal. No mention of employment practices, community involvement, or charitable giving in any channel.
  • Level 1A single passing reference to community or a social theme (for example, "family business", "friendly neighbourhood spot") without describing any practice or commitment.
  • Level 2Incidental or unsubstantiated references. Social themes appear in positioning but lack specifics; no recurring commitment, no named organisation.
  • Level 3At least one named and verifiable social commitment: a charity, a community project, or an employment initiative described with enough specificity to be cross-referenced.
  • Level 4Multiple named commitments across at least two sub-areas. Evidence of recurrence. Named partner organisations verifiable online. Fair employment described explicitly. Independent corroboration in at least one source.
  • Level 5Active and recurring leadership role, documented over time. Formal partnerships with social organisations. Practices recognised by independent press, B-Corp certification, SRA Food Made Good society pillar, or equivalent third-party validation. Practices addressed across all three sub-areas.
D6

Plant-forward menu

The structural role of vegetables, legumes, and plant-based ingredients on the menu, whether plants are the main event.

Not whether the restaurant is vegan or vegetarian, but whether plants are the main event.

  • Below scaleMeat- and protein-centred menu. Vegetables consistently as sides or garnishes. No or only token vegetarian mains. No plant-forward language, positioning, or intent anywhere.
  • Level 1Minimum plant-forward engagement: at least one vegetarian main on the regular menu with visible vegetable focus on some dishes, but the menu remains structurally meat-centred.
  • Level 2Some vegetarian options but the menu is not structured around plants. Vegan options absent or only on request.
  • Level 3Meaningful plant presence; roughly 30 to 50 per cent of mains are vegetarian or vegetable-centred. Vegan options available. Plant-forward intent acknowledged but animal proteins equally or more prominent.
  • Level 4Plants clearly dominant. Vegetables are the foundation of most dishes. Vegan and vegetarian options extensive and clearly the kitchen's priority.
  • Level 5Fully plant-forward by design. Vegetables unambiguously the centre of the kitchen's identity. Animal proteins, if present, are minimal, optional, and responsibly sourced. Restaurant publicly described as plant-forward by press, guides, or its own positioning.
D · Parallel dimension

D7: a health-intentional kitchen.

Whether the kitchen is deliberately designed around nutritional quality and guest wellbeing, intentionality and verifiable practice, not a nutritional audit. D7 lies outside the SEERO framework: it does not contribute to the weighted average, the covered dimension count, or the Planet rating. It is reported alongside the SEERO scores for informational purposes only.

D7

Health-intentional kitchen

Three sub-areas: processing and ingredient integrity; sugar, salt, and additive restraint; nutritional intentionality in menu design.

  • Below scaleNo health, nutrition, or wellbeing signal anywhere. Menu reads as standard restaurant fare with no health-conscious language or structure. No incidental health adjectives.
  • Level 1A single in-passing health adjective ("wholesome", "nourishing", "honest food", "feel-good") with no described practice or method, a brushed reference rather than positioning.
  • Level 2Vague, marketing-level claims ("healthy food", "fresh and nutritious", "good for you") without specific practices or named methods.
  • Level 3At least one concrete, verifiable health-oriented practice in one sub-area: explicit avoidance of refined sugar, scratch cooking from whole ingredients with specificity, fermentation or sprouting as a deliberate health practice, or a stated additive-avoidance policy.
  • Level 4Health intentionality across at least two sub-areas, with independent corroboration. Editorial coverage, guide descriptions, or chef interviews citing health as a kitchen principle. Menu visibly structures dishes around nutrient density.
  • Level 5Health is a founding principle, independently validated. Press, guide listings, or certifications cite the health dimension; may include nutritionist involvement, published nutritional philosophy, or recognition in health-focused food media. Practices evident across all three sub-areas.
E · F · Covered dimensions and Planet rating

From scores to Planets.

The Planet rating condenses the SEERO scoring into a single five-step badge a reader can scan in a second. Higher Planets require more dimensions to be covered and, at the top of the scale, an external certification. They are not just a higher average score.

Coverage thresholds

A dimension counts as covered when it reaches a minimum engagement level. The covered-dimensions count feeds into the Planet rating. At least two dimensions must be covered for any Planet rating to be assigned. Below-scale dimensions never count as covered.

D1 · Local and direct sourcingLevel 3
D2 · Seasonal cookingLevel 3
D3 · Low waste and circular practicesLevel 3
D4 · Sustainable animal productsLevel 3
D5 · Social impactLevel 3
D6 · Plant-forward menuLevel 4
Planet Label Min. covered Plain-English meaning
1 Starting 2 First credible signs of sustainable practice. The restaurant is on the path but the evidence base is thin.
2 Engaged 2 Sustainability is on the agenda with multiple covered dimensions, but practice is still developing or partly unverified.
3 Endorsed 3 A solid sustainability profile across at least three dimensions, supported by independent or corroborated evidence.
4 Recognised 4 Strong, demonstrably consistent practice across the majority of dimensions.
5 Outstanding 5 Sustainability is a defining principle of the restaurant, validated across all SEERO dimensions. Requires a current, recognised third-party certification.

Single-dimension exception. A restaurant with only one covered dimension can still earn Planet 1 when that dimension shows exceptionally deep engagement (Level 4 or 5 on D1 to D5, or Level 5 on D6) and the overall score floor is met. This recognises kitchens that go genuinely deep on a single area, for instance, a fully plant-forward menu by design or a near-complete direct-sourcing operation, without requiring breadth across multiple dimensions. The exception caps at Planet 1; Planet 2 and above always require at least two covered dimensions.

Not assignable. If the minimum conditions are not met (fewer than two covered dimensions, or score below the floor), the Planet rating is recorded as Not assignable.

G · Sourcing signals

Three high-trust flags, recorded outside the dimensions.

Independent of the dimension scoring. Each signal is binary and carries its own evidence tier and notes.

Ø

Certified organic ingredients

A named, recognised certification: EU Organic, Demeter, EKO, Bioland, Nature & Progrès, Soil Association, or national equivalents.

Own-grown produce

The restaurant operates its own garden, orchard, or farm. Decorative herbs or token garnishes do not qualify.

Direct named-farm sourcing

An ongoing supply relationship with a named farm, beyond one-off sourcing. "Local farmers" without names does not qualify.

H · Evidence tiers

Every score carries a tier.

Every score and signal carries an evidence tier that indicates how confidently the finding can be trusted. Scores above Level 2 cannot rest on sources older than three years.

self_declared Stated by the restaurant itself (website, menu, social media), not independently corroborated.
researched Found through independent research; one credible source.
partially_audited Corroborated across multiple sources; some gaps remain.
audited Fully corroborated across independent sources and/or third-party certification.
I · J · Allergens and tags

Practical context for the diner.

Captured separately from the SEERO scoring. Neither affects the Planet rating.

Allergen handling

Captures how the restaurant manages allergens.

  • Posture: high (active allergen management, published protocols), medium (staff-led handling on request), or low (minimal allergen specialism).
  • Allergens handled: which of the EU-14 the restaurant reports supporting (peanut, tree nuts, shellfish, fish, molluscs, milk, eggs, gluten, soy, sesame, celery, mustard, sulphites, lupin).
  • Notice required: none, at booking, or advance notice.

Tags

Short labels describing cuisine, style, features, and dietary compatibility. Each tag is true (confirmed present), false (confirmed absent), or null (not assessable from available sources).

Defaulting rules apply: most practical tags default to false when no evidence is found; dietary-compatibility tags default to null unless explicitly confirmed.

K · L · Methodology and limitations

How the assessment is built. What it does not claim.

Research is conducted across web sources: certifications, food journalism, guides, restaurant websites, social media, and any restaurant-supplied material. Sources are weighted by independence, specificity, and recency. Independent corroboration strengthens both scores and evidence tiers. When evidence supports either of two scores, the lower is assigned.

How it is built

  • Source weighting: third-party over self-published, named practices over generic claims, recent over old (the three-year rule for scores above Level 2).
  • Cross-verification: independent corroboration strengthens both scores and evidence tiers.
  • Conservative scoring: when evidence supports either of two scores, the lower is assigned.
  • Plain-language narrative: framework terms (SEERO, dimension codes, evidence tiers) are intentionally kept out of consumer-facing text.

What it does not claim

  • Point in time: profiles are snapshots. The assessment date is shown on the cover page.
  • Source-bound: findings depend on available public sources; practices that are real but undocumented may be understated.
  • Preliminary at the top: Planets 4 and 5 are preliminary and subject to human validation before final publication.
  • Not a culinary review: this assessment does not evaluate food quality, service, or value.
  • Refinable: profiles are subject to refinement as new evidence surfaces or the restaurant submits additional material.