Industrial site with on-site renewable generation
  1. Home
  2. Assurance
  3. Behind the claim there is a file — or a press release.

Behind the claim there is a file — or a press release.

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.

Standards applied
ISO 14068-1:2023ISO 14064-3:2019
The sequence

What makes a neutrality claim defensible.

  1. Calculate the footprint

    A defined boundary, a defined period and a method that can be examined. Everything downstream inherits its errors.

    Step one
  2. Reduce, and prove it

    We examine what was implemented, not what was planned. A reduction plan is not a reduction.

    The step most claims fail
  3. Quantify the residual

    Residual emissions after implemented reductions — stated, not assumed.

    Step three
  4. Compensate only the residual

    Registry, serial number, retirement date and evidence that the unit has not been counted twice.

    Step four
  5. Word the claim to match

    The claim, its scope and its period must not be wider than the evidence that supports them.

    The wording is examined too
Solar array and access walkway at a utility-scale site
What you prepare

The neutrality file.

  • The verified footprint report
  • The carbon-neutrality management plan
  • Evidence that reduction measures were implemented
  • Offset unit certificates and retirement records
  • The exact text of the claim as it will be published
  • The marketing material that will carry the claim
Industrial transition scene
The output

What you receive — and what it does not mean.

A verification statement covering a defined neutrality claim, for a defined entity or facility, for a defined period.

What it does not mean: It does not mean “net zero” — the two are not the same thing. It does not extend to later periods. It does not cover the entity’s products unless they are named explicitly.
Why we might decline

Three claims we will not verify.

  • No real reduction has been implemented and the claim rests on compensation alone.
  • Offset units cannot be traced in a recognised registry.
  • The wording of the claim is wider than the evidence that supports it.

Frequently asked

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.

Describe the claim — not the service.

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.