Evidence that withstands scrutiny
Evidence that withstands scrutiny
A neutrality claim is not the result of buying offsets. It is the result of a sequence: the footprint is calculated, real reductions are made, and only the residual is compensated. The verifier examines the whole sequence, not the last step.
A defined boundary, a defined period and a method that can be examined. Everything downstream inherits its errors.
Step oneWe examine what was implemented, not what was planned. A reduction plan is not a reduction.
The step most claims failResidual emissions after implemented reductions — stated, not assumed.
Step threeRegistry, serial number, retirement date and evidence that the unit has not been counted twice.
Step fourThe claim, its scope and its period must not be wider than the evidence that supports them.
The wording is examined too
A verification statement covering a defined neutrality claim, for a defined entity or facility, for a defined period.
No. They are different claims with different requirements. A statement issued against ISO 14068-1 addresses the neutrality claim as defined in that standard, and says so explicitly.
ISO 14068-1 sets out a reduction hierarchy. A claim resting on compensation alone, with no implemented reductions, is one we would decline.
Only if the products are named in it. An entity-level claim does not automatically extend to a product.
Tell us what must be relied on, who will rely on it and by what date. We will confirm the correct programme, evidence requirement and responsible entity — or tell you it is outside our scope.
