Evidence that withstands scrutiny
A customer asks for "the carbon footprint of the product". Sometimes they want a verified CFP under ISO 14067:2018. Sometimes they want a published EPD under ISO 14025:2006, with a programme operator and a product category rule. The two overlap in method and diverge in almost everything else.
| The requirement says | Likely deliverable | What you also need |
|---|---|---|
| "Provide the product carbon footprint" | Verified CFP to ISO 14067:2018 | A declared unit, a defined boundary, and a decision on cradle-to-gate versus cradle-to-grave |
| "An EPD is required for tender submission" | Published EPD to ISO 14025:2006 | A programme operator, the applicable PCR, an LCA, and time for verification and publication |
| "EN 15804 compliant declaration" | Construction EPD under EN 15804+A2 | Modules A1–A3 as a minimum, and the modules the client actually requires |
| "Scope 3 category 1 data from suppliers" | Cradle-to-gate partial CFP per purchased product | Alignment with the customer's allocation and boundary rules, or the data will not be usable |
| "CBAM embedded emissions" | Neither — this is a regulatory calculation | Embedded emissions per Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2547, verified by a CBAM-accredited verifier |
Which customer, which tender, which framework, and the exact wording of the clause. Everything below follows from it.
Before anythingOne tonne, one square metre, one unit of packaged product — with the function it delivers. A change here invalidates everything downstream.
DefinitionCradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave; for construction, which of the EN 15804 modules. State the cut-off criteria and the allocation rules.
BoundaryPrimary data for the foreground system; documented secondary data with database, version and geography for the background.
LCAPerformed by a body that took no part in preparing the study. For an EPD, verification also has to satisfy the programme operator's own rules.
VerificationA CFP results in a verified study and statement. An EPD is registered and published with a validity period, after which it must be revised or withdrawn.
OutputEditorial note. Author and technical review above are editorial functions. They are separate from the independent technical review and the decision functions required under ISO/IEC 17029:2019, which apply to validation and verification engagements and not to published articles. Nothing on this page is advice on a specific engagement, and nothing here extends or replaces the accreditation records.
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.