Evidence that withstands scrutiny
Evidence that withstands scrutiny
A request arrives asking for "ISO 14064 certification". No such thing exists in the way the sender imagines. Understanding why saves a procurement cycle, and sometimes an audit finding. This note sets out the distinction as the standards actually draw it.
| What you were asked for | What is normally meant | What to procure |
|---|---|---|
| "ISO 14064 certification" | Independent verification of a GHG inventory prepared to ISO 14064-1:2018 | Verification by an accredited validation and verification body |
| "Carbon footprint certificate" | Verification of a product carbon footprint quantified to ISO 14067:2018 | Product-level verification, and an EPD if a Type III declaration is wanted |
| "Verified ISO 14001" | ISO 14001:2015 management-system certification | Certification by an accredited certification body |
| "Carbon neutral certification" | Verification of a carbon neutrality claim against ISO 14068-1:2023 | Verification of the claim and its underlying inventory, plus the neutrality management plan |
| "CBAM certificate" | Verification of embedded emissions for a CBAM declaration | A verifier accredited for CBAM under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2551, within a scope covering the goods |
| "Net zero certification" | Usually undefined — the buyer needs to state the criteria | Ask which criteria and which boundary before quoting anything |
A certificate procured where a verification statement was needed usually survives internal review and fails at the point of use — when a European customer, a lender or a disclosure platform reads the document and finds that it attests to a system rather than to a number. By then the reporting deadline is close and the data year has closed.
The reverse error is less common but more expensive: verifying a figure when the buyer's actual requirement was a certified management system, which cannot be produced retrospectively because it requires a system to have been operating over time.
The reliable test is to read the requirement rather than the request. Ask for the clause, the contract term or the regulation that generates the obligation, and let the instrument follow from it.
Editorial 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.
