Practical answers before you commission verification or assurance.

An agreed scope and timetable, formal verification of the complete reporting period, independent review and the appropriate verification reporting. When you commission verification, you also receive a free readiness review with documented findings. We do not increase the verification fee to cover it.

Because a team that starts early has a smoother verification, with fewer late requests and no scramble before the deadline, and a client whose first year goes well stays with us. We treat the review as an investment in a long relationship, so we do not recover its cost through your fee: there is no first-year surcharge and your verification costs the same with or without it. How the free readiness review works.

We quote a fee for the agreed scope, not an hourly rate. It depends on the scopes and categories covered, the number of sites, entities and countries, how complex the inventory is, the level of assurance and the timetable. Your readiness review is free and is not added to the fee. Remote-first delivery keeps travel costs out of most engagements. Our online fee estimate gives you an initial figure in a few minutes.

No. You agree your verification one year at a time, with no multi-year contract and no discount that depends on committing for three years. Our clients stay because of the service: over 90% renew each year, and our longest-standing clients have been with us for almost two decades. Our renewal promise.

If your scope stays the same, your renewal fee will rise by no more than CPI inflation. CPI is the 12-month Consumer Prices Index rate published by the Office for National Statistics for the month before your renewal. If your scope changes, for example more sites, additional Scope 3 categories or a higher level of assurance, we agree the new fee with you before any work begins.

More than the fee. A new verifier has to learn your boundaries, methodology and data sources from scratch, and your team answers the same questions all over again. That is why we keep renewals to CPI and offer a price promise: price should never be the reason you leave. If you are moving to us, the free readiness review does much of that getting-to-know-you work before formal verification starts.

It is our name for what happens when building, defending and verifying a carbon footprint leaves a sustainability team no time for sustainability. Deadlines turn into scrambles, rushed work leads to slips, slips lead to more requests, and good people leave. Starting early, dealing with one verifier who knows your data, and fair renewals all take the pressure out. Read about footprint fatigue.

Yes. If you have a written quotation from another verifier for the same scope, standard, assurance level and deliverables, we will match it. Why price should never be the reason you leave.

Yes. A free readiness review can examine part-year information or the previous year’s inventory and methods. Formal verification follows when the complete reporting-period information is available.

Earlier than feels necessary. Don’t wait until you think everything is ready: by then the deadline is usually close, and the pressure lands on your team. For a 31 December year-end, we suggest starting the readiness review between September and December, using part-year or last year’s data. You get our feedback months ahead and can act on it at your own pace. A missed SECR, CDP or customer deadline is very visible; an early start takes verification off the critical path. Why starting early helps your team.

No. We’ll discuss your reporting purpose, likely scope, available information and deadline, then agree what is needed. You do not need a finished inventory or documents ready for the introductory call. See what we’ll discuss.

No. We don’t have a sales team, and nobody here is employed to sell. Your introductory call is with a verifier, a technical specialist. Ask the questions you need answered, without a sales pitch. The aim is to solve your problem and find you a route forward, whether that is with us or with another provider. Book a call.

The person you speak to on your first call. Unless you ask for a change, or we agree one with you, they lead your verification and stay your contact throughout, from scoping to the final statement and in the years that follow, so you explain your scope, data and systems once. Most of our verifiers have been with us for more than ten years. The independent review is carried out by a second verifier who has not worked on your inventory, as the standard requires. Our promise.

A straightforward verification with clean, well-documented data can be completed in days; a multi-entity, multi-country inventory with complex Scope 3 categories takes several weeks. The biggest factor is how ready your data is, which is why we start with the free readiness review. We plan back from your deadline and confirm we have capacity before accepting the work.

Reasonable assurance provides a higher level of assurance and requires more extensive evidence gathering. Limited assurance also requires sufficient, appropriate evidence for its conclusion. Neither provides absolute assurance. Compare the two levels.

Estimates are not automatically disqualifying. We assess whether the methods, assumptions and evidence meet the agreed reporting criteria and whether uncertainty and limitations are appropriately addressed.

We verify agreed relevant categories. We examine methods, assumptions, category coverage and evidence, and make the scope and limitations clear. Read about Scope 3 verification.

Not necessarily. ISO 14064-1 asks you to report significant indirect emissions and lets you set your own criteria for significance, such as size or your ability to manage the emissions. The GHG Protocol asks you to disclose and justify any exclusions. At verification we look for documented criteria, a screening of all 15 categories with estimated sizes, a recorded reason for each inclusion or exclusion, and disclosure of what was left out. What we look for

We document the findings and explain the requirements involved. Your team or adviser implements corrections and supplies evidence. We assess the response; the final conclusion depends on the evidence obtained.

Not always. Remote methods are used where suitable. A visit may be necessary where the evidence or applicable programme requires it. We discuss this during planning.

Our published programme explains the standards, competence, independence and review arrangements behind the work. Read our standards and credentials for the supporting detail and accreditation status.

Yes. For CDP disclosures, we verify ISO 14064-1 organisational footprints in accordance with ISO 14064-3, a verification standard accepted by CDP. Our verification statements have been accepted in previous CDP disclosures. We agree the reporting period, coverage and assurance level for your engagement. Explore verification for CDP.

We do not prepare the inventory we will later verify. We explain findings and the relevant requirements; preparation and corrections remain with your organisation or an independent adviser.

Your communications should accurately reflect the statement’s reporting period, scope, criteria, assurance level and limitations. An opinion on specified data does not substantiate every environmental claim.

We agree appropriate access and sharing arrangements and handle records under our confidentiality policy. Read the policy.

We are an independent verification body providing ISO 14064-3 verification of organisational greenhouse gas inventories. Independent GHG verification is our entire practice: we do not sell consultancy, build inventories or sell software, so our team, training and procedures are built around one discipline. We work remote-first, following ISO 14064-5:2026 guidance, and visit sites where it adds real evidential value. We have been verifying emissions since 2007, across more than 20 economic sectors. We are also the verification body behind a carbon certification scheme approved by the British Government and the Environment Agency following extensive consultation with businesses, the public sector and a wide range of environmental groups. Why choose us

We have been carrying out independent GHG verification since 2007 and are now in our 20th year. Our longest-standing clients have been with us for almost as long. In that time we have verified inventories for FTSE-listed financial institutions, NHS trusts, police forces, local and central government, international charities and manufacturers operating across several continents.

Our clients include organisations in automotive, business services, construction, education, consumer products, financial services, central and local government, healthcare, charities, information services, mining and extraction, hospitality and leisure, media, manufacturing, emergency services, energy and utilities, retail, transport and logistics, telecommunications, waste management and real estate. See clients by sector

No. Carbon Verification Limited is a structurally independent verification body. We are not a subsidiary of a consultancy, a certification network or a software provider, and we have no commercial relationships that could compromise our independence.

We provide independent third-party verification of organisational greenhouse gas inventories prepared using ISO 14064-1 or the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. Our verification follows ISO 14064-3 and covers Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions. Avoided emissions can be assessed separately from the inventory where you report them. Our verification services

No. We do not advise on reduction strategies, net zero pathways, target-setting or offsetting. We identify and document what your data shows. Advising on what to do about it is a separate discipline, and providing it would compromise our independence.

No. We verify inventories your team has prepared. If you need help building your inventory, that work should be done by your own team or an independent consultant. Our free readiness review can then show you how ready it is for verification.

No. We do not endorse, recommend or receive commission from any carbon accounting platform or technology provider. Our opinion is formed on the evidence, not on which tool produced it.

No. We are not a multi-scheme certification body. We do one thing: independent ISO 14064-3 verification of greenhouse gas inventories. Our service boundaries

No. Verification is an evidence-based opinion on reported GHG data. It is not a financial product or investment service.

Start with a conversation. We will ask about your reporting purpose, which scopes you report, how your data is collected and when you need the statement. Then we will explain how your free readiness review and verification would work. You do not need a finished inventory for the first call. Book a call

This is more common than most organisations expect, and it is exactly what the free readiness review is for. We review the information you already have, from part-year or last year’s data, and give your team private, documented findings while there is still time to address them. Formal verification then covers the complete reporting period.

Every client receives one when they commission verification, but it is especially useful for organisations preparing their first comprehensive baseline, those with concerns about Scope 3 data quality, those that have been through an acquisition, divestment or boundary change, and those preparing a submission with a fixed deadline, such as CDP or a certification scheme. How the free readiness review works

It makes it easier to be ready. It does not lower the bar. Formal verification is carried out to the same standards for every client, and a statement is only issued where the evidence supports it. What changes is that you see our concerns early, while you can still act on them.

Only you and the team who commissioned the review. We do not send them to your board, your finance director or anyone else; you decide whether to share them. Points you resolve at the readiness stage do not appear in your verification statement or findings report, because formal verification covers the final figures you submit.

Not usually. Carbon accounting changes every year: emission factors are updated, the GHG Protocol is revising its standards, and Scope 2 and Scope 3 guidance keeps moving. Many findings come from careful, experienced teams whose footprint was right when it was built and has since been overtaken by new requirements. We see the same patterns every day, which is why we can spot them quickly. The errors we find most often

It should do the opposite. We work alongside the people who built the footprint, privately, before formal verification starts. We point out anything that needs strengthening and explain the requirement behind it; your team makes the corrections, so the improved footprint is their work. By the time the figures reach the board they have been independently tested, and the team can say so. If it helps, we will also give you a short note for your board or finance director explaining why verification was commissioned. Built with you, not against you

Verification is not a statement that your inventory is perfect. It is an independent opinion that, within the agreed scope and level of assurance, your reported emissions are free from material misstatement, your methods are appropriate and your limitations are disclosed.

For companies within Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting, the figures appear in the directors’ report, which the board approves. Under section 463 of the Companies Act 2006, directors can be liable to the company for statements in that report they knew were untrue or misleading, or made recklessly. Verification does not remove that responsibility, but it gives the board an independent check and a documented record that the figures were tested before publication. Who carries the risk

No. Your organisation prepares its inventory and remains responsible for it, and that separation is what keeps verification independent. We are responsible for carrying out the verification properly and for the conclusion in our statement. How we protect independence

Independent GHG verification is all we do. We follow the GHG Protocol’s revision of its corporate standards, including Scope 2, Scope 3 and its Actions and Market Instruments work, and its partnership with ISO to develop unified carbon accounting standards. Each verification is carried out against the requirements that apply to your reporting period, and we tell you about changes that will affect your next report.

Our programme follows ISO 14064-3 and ISO/IEC 17029 and has seven stages: a pre-engagement review of our competence, capacity and independence; a verification agreement setting out scope, standard, level of assurance, materiality and the rules for using the statement; planning, including team selection and a risk assessment; the verification itself, testing your inventory, methods, emission factors and activity data and raising findings for you to address; independent review of the team’s work by someone not involved in it; the decision and verification statement, made by personnel independent of the verification team; and post-issue monitoring. You receive a detailed findings report at the end of every engagement. Our verification programme in detail

The findings report sets out any misstatements, nonconformities with the applicable standard, data quality weaknesses, calculation errors, boundary gaps and areas for improvement. Each finding is ranked by severity and materiality. Every client receives the report, whatever the outcome.

If new facts come to light that could materially affect the statement, we will contact you and, if necessary, revise or withdraw it. Engagement records are retained securely and confidentially for at least seven years.

Your GHG inventory with its calculations and methodology documented; source records for the emissions in scope; a main contact who understands how your data is collected and calculated; and timely answers to our questions. Well-prepared data moves through verification faster, which is one reason we offer the free readiness review. What we’ll discuss on the first call

The decision is made by personnel who were not involved in carrying out the verification. This separation, required by ISO/IEC 17029, means the decision rests on the evidence alone.

Yes. We tell you the names and roles of the team in good time for you to raise any objection before work begins. Our team

Most organisations start with limited assurance, which is appropriate for most voluntary reporting and CDP submissions. Reasonable assurance involves considerably more testing; in our experience it typically takes 50 to 100 per cent more audit time. We will tell you if your reporting obligations, customers or board expectations call for more, and we do not upsell.

A misstatement is material if, on its own or together with others, it could influence the decisions of the people who rely on your inventory. Our standard threshold is 5 per cent of total reported emissions for limited assurance and 2 per cent for reasonable assurance, unless the reporting framework or our agreement with you specifies otherwise. Materiality can also be qualitative, for example where an omission would affect how readers understand your figures.

Remote verification is our default approach, not a fallback. It gives the same assured opinion with lower cost, faster scheduling and less travel. Our remote methods follow ISO 14064-5:2026. How remote verification works

Yes. The evidence requirements, materiality assessment, independent review and decision process are the same. What changes is how we gather the evidence, not the standard we hold it to.

Our teams can require a visit whenever professional judgement calls for it, for example where a facility’s risk profile is high, where programme rules require attendance, or where remote evidence proves inadequate. We then schedule a targeted visit to address the specific gap rather than defaulting to a full on-site engagement.

Secure encrypted document exchange, video calls for interviews and meetings and, where relevant, satellite imagery and remote sensing to corroborate facilities and land use. Each method is assessed for data integrity, limitations, acceptability and security before we rely on it.

ISO 14064-5:2026, which gives guidance on remote activities in the verification and validation of GHG statements, provides the risk-based framework for our remote methods. Our wider programme follows ISO 14064-3, ISO 14065:2020, ISO 14066:2023 and ISO/IEC 17029.

Yes. With no travel, accommodation or subsistence costs, more of the fee goes on examining your data, and scheduling is faster when it is not tied to travel.

We verify organisational GHG inventories prepared using ISO 14064-1 or the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. Our verification follows ISO 14064-3 and covers Scopes 1, 2 and 3. Reporting and verification standards

ISO 14064 covers how organisations quantify, report and verify their emissions: Part 1 for inventories and Part 3 for verification. ISO 14065 sets requirements for verification bodies themselves, covering competence, impartiality and procedures. It is the standard accreditation bodies assess verification bodies against.

Yes for CDP: we verify ISO 14064-1 footprints in accordance with ISO 14064-3, a verification standard accepted by CDP, and our statements have been accepted in previous CDP disclosures. Verification for CDP. For other frameworks and customer requirements, we check the coverage, assurance and provider requirements during scoping. Some schemes specify who may provide assurance, and if yours does we will tell you.

ISO 14068-1 is the international standard for carbon neutrality claims. It requires a quantified GHG footprint, a carbon management plan and transparent treatment of residual emissions. We can verify the GHG inventory component to ISO 14064-3 in support of an ISO 14068-1 claim.

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 lets the Competition and Markets Authority fine businesses up to 10 per cent of global turnover for breaches of consumer law, including misleading environmental claims. Independent verification gives you evidence for claims about your emissions, provided your claims stay within the period, scope and assurance level that were verified.

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard is the leading international framework for corporate emissions reporting. It defines the Scope 1, 2 and 3 structure used in almost every modern emissions disclosure and underpins CDP, the Science Based Targets initiative, ISO 14064-1, SECR guidance and PPN 006 Carbon Reduction Plans. Our practice is built on it, with full coverage of Scope 1, location- and market-based Scope 2 and all 15 Scope 3 categories. More on reporting standards

The GHG Protocol is revising its corporate standards, including how market instruments and actions beyond the inventory are reported. We follow the revision process closely and will update our verification methodology as changes are adopted, so clients moving to the new requirements are verified against current practice.

Yes. Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting requires quoted companies, large unquoted companies and large LLPs to report energy use and emissions in their annual report. SECR does not require verification, but independent ISO 14064-3 verification strengthens the credibility of the figures, gives the directors who sign the report a clear audit trail and supports investor due diligence. We have verified SECR-aligned disclosures for financial services firms, NHS trusts, manufacturers and complex multi-entity groups.

Yes. Procurement Policy Note 006 requires suppliers bidding for in-scope UK government contracts above £5 million a year to publish a Carbon Reduction Plan covering Scope 1, Scope 2 and specified Scope 3 categories, using GHG Protocol methods. We verify the figures in your plan to ISO 14064-3, giving buyers independent assurance rather than self-declared data.

We test your organisational boundary (control or equity share), your operational boundary across Scopes 1, 2 and 3, the selection and application of emission factors, the quality of source data such as utility invoices, fuel records, supplier data, mileage and refrigerant logs and contractual instruments, how activities are allocated across the 15 Scope 3 categories, and whether your disclosures are transparent and consistent. Scope 3 in particular is methodologically demanding, and it is where our experience counts most.

Verification gives directors confidence in climate disclosures closer to what they expect of financial statements, because an independent verifier has tested the evidence first. It also creates a clear record that the organisation applied reasonable scrutiny before publishing. Benefits of verification

Self-declared environmental claims are increasingly met with scepticism. Verification lets you make transparent, evidence-based statements about your emissions, provided they stay within the verified scope.

Large customers and public sector buyers increasingly ask suppliers for emissions data to support their own Scope 3 reporting, and some ask for it to be verified. A verification statement shows your figures have been independently tested, which can set your bid apart from self-declared data.

The risks include challenges to unsupported environmental claims, losing out where customers or investors expect assured data, a lower CDP score where verification is needed to reach the Leadership band, and reputational damage if published figures turn out to be wrong.

Verification only has value if the verifier has no stake in the outcome. When a verifier also provides consultancy or software to the same client, a structural conflict of interest exists, even if individuals act with integrity. Our opinion is determined by the evidence alone. How we protect independence

Fees that do not depend on the outcome; a strict rule against providing both consultancy and verification to the same client; no commission or equity relationships with software providers, offset suppliers or consultancies; declarations by all personnel of any links with clients; and separation of the verification, review and decision roles.

Self-interest, managed through fees that do not depend on the outcome; self-review, managed by never verifying work we helped create; familiarity, managed through structured procedures and independent review; and intimidation, managed by ensuring our people can report findings honestly without adverse consequences.

Yes. Our full Impartiality Policy is published on this website and covers our safeguards, how we identify and manage threats, governance and how to raise concerns.

Our team is selected, trained and formally authorised against ISO 14066:2023, the standard for the competence of GHG verification teams. No one carries out verification work beyond their demonstrated and authorised competence. Our team

Integrity, fair presentation, due professional care, professional judgement, impartiality and an evidence-based approach. Claims are not accepted at face value: they are tested against sufficient, appropriate evidence, and we actively look for evidence that contradicts them.

The verification team plans and carries out the verification and drafts the opinion. Technical experts provide specialist sector or subject knowledge but do not sign the opinion. The independent reviewer, who must not have been involved in the fieldwork, reviews the work and conclusions before the opinion is issued.

Our experience includes combined heat and power allocation, refrigerant losses, fleet and transport emissions, half-hourly electricity data, international fuel consumption, commuting and homeworking, spend-based and activity-based Scope 3 methods across all 15 categories, emission factor validation using UK Government and international sources, multi-entity global programmes and avoided emissions.

No. If an engagement falls outside our collective competence, we will say so and either decline it or add a qualified technical expert to the team. We do not learn on your inventory.

The United Kingdom Accreditation Service is the national accreditation body. For GHG verification, it accredits verification bodies against ISO 14065 and ISO/IEC 17029 for a defined scope of schemes, sectors and gases, and checks them through periodic surveillance audits.

Not necessarily. Accreditation does not certify expertise. It confirms that a verification body’s procedures meet the standard for a limited, defined scope, which is set out in its schedule on the UKAS register. Two bodies can display the same logo while being accredited for entirely different things. For example, one current accreditation covers verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport: one gas, one activity, one sector. For that work it carries real assurance, but it does not transfer to a corporate inventory covering all seven greenhouse gases, market-based Scope 2 claims, multi-entity consolidation or the 15 Scope 3 categories. So the useful question is not “are they accredited?” but “are they accredited for what we are asking them to do?”. Check the published schedule, then ask for examples of similar work. What to assess in any verifier

It confirms that the verification body has documented procedures meeting ISO 14065 and ISO/IEC 17029, that its personnel competence requirements have been assessed, that impartiality controls are in place and reviewed, and that it works within a defined scope that is audited at intervals. It does not confirm that any individual verification opinion is correct, that the person carrying out your audit has experience of your sector, that the work will be quicker or cheaper, or that accredited verification is needed for the report you are preparing.

Usually not for voluntary corporate reporting. UKAS accreditation is a legal requirement mainly for regulated schemes such as the UK Emissions Trading Scheme and CORSIA. For ISO 14064-1 inventories, CDP and SECR, what is generally required is independent third-party verification; CDP’s scorers check the verification standard used. Always check the rules of the scheme or customer you are reporting to, and if they require an accredited body, we will tell you. Our standards and credentials

Start with the standards. A credible verification body works to ISO 14065 (requirements for verification bodies) and ISO 14066 (competence of verification teams), verifies to ISO 14064-3, and can show you how. Then check structural independence between verification and advice, relevant sector experience, who will actually do the fieldwork and who will sign the opinion, and the documented process for findings, disputes and complaints. If a provider is accredited, check that its accredited scope covers the kind of work you need. Finally, ask how you will find out about problems: a verifier that tests your data before the formal audit, as our free readiness review does, gives you time to fix issues rather than discovering them at the end.

Yes. Annual emissions reports under the UK ETS must be verified by a verifier accredited by UKAS for the relevant activity. It is a mandatory compliance scheme, and not one we verify.

Because reported emissions have a direct cash value. In schemes such as the UK ETS, your reported emissions determine how many allowances you must surrender, which creates a financial incentive to under-report. Accreditation is the regulator’s safeguard for that market. The same logic does not automatically apply to voluntary reporting.

We do not work in the mandatory compliance market, so we do not verify UK ETS or CORSIA submissions, and accreditation is primarily a compliance-market requirement. Maintaining it carries costs that would have to be recovered from clients who gain no regulatory benefit from it. Instead, we work to the same ISO standards an accredited body works to, including ISO 14065, ISO 14066, ISO 14064-3, ISO 14064-5:2026 and ISO/IEC 17029, and our procedures and controls are published on this website.

To keep its accreditation, a verification body must let UKAS assessors observe live engagements. An assessor may attend meetings, sit in on interviews with your staff and review the working papers from your inventory. The audit assesses the verifier, not you, but your organisation carries the time and scheduling impact.

The standards do the work of assurance. We operate to the same ISO framework as an accredited body, and our impartiality controls, decision separation, competence framework, evidence requirements, materiality and findings process are built against those standards and published on this website. Where a client’s reporting genuinely requires an accredited body, we will say so and point them to one.

No. UKAS accredits verification bodies against ISO 14065 and ISO/IEC 17029. There is no accreditation against the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard itself. For organisations reporting to GHG Protocol-based frameworks, a verifier’s methodological knowledge of the GHG Protocol and its revisions matters a great deal.

Check the accredited scope, which is published on the UKAS register. Accreditation is granted for specific activities, sectors and gases, and a scope for one regulated activity does not automatically cover corporate inventory or Scope 3 verification. The useful question is not just whether a verifier is accredited, but whether the accreditation covers the work you are asking them to do.

No. We do not verify mandatory compliance schemes. Our work is focused on voluntary and corporate GHG reporting.

Yes, clearly and at the outset. If the scheme or customer you are reporting to requires an accredited body, we will tell you and point you to the right route.

Send your appeal in writing within 30 calendar days of the statement date, setting out the decision you are challenging, your grounds and supporting evidence. Appeals are investigated by personnel not involved in the original decision. If an appeal is upheld, the decision is reconsidered and a revised statement issued where appropriate. Appeals and complaints procedure

Anyone can complain in writing at any time, including clients, regulators, programme owners, users of verified claims and members of the public. We acknowledge complaints in writing within five working days and investigate using personnel not involved in the matter.

Where we are legally required to disclose information, we will tell you what was released, unless the law prevents it, and disclose only the minimum needed. Confidentiality policy

The matter can be escalated to an independent party agreed between us, or to a relevant regulator or programme owner.