The team behind the opinion. Competence demonstrated, authorised and maintained.

ISO/IEC 17029 and ISO 14066:2023 together require verification bodies to establish, apply and maintain a documented process for managing the competence of personnel involved in validation and verification activities. ISO 14066:2023, through its normative Annex F, specifies the additional competence requirements that apply to greenhouse gas verification engagements.

Our competence framework defines the criteria for each function in the verification process, identifies training needs, requires personnel to demonstrate the competence required for their role, formally authorises personnel for specific functions, and monitors performance on an ongoing basis.

This framework ensures that no individual conducts verification activities beyond their demonstrated competence, and that every verification engagement is delivered by personnel with the specific technical knowledge and experience the engagement demands.

Our team has been involved in GHG verification for nearly two decades. In that time, we have verified inventories across every major sector of the economy — financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, police and emergency services, local and central government, higher education, international NGOs, transport and logistics, and energy and utilities.

This experience is not theoretical. We have conducted detailed data-level audits of FTSE-listed financial institutions, multi-site NHS trusts, police forces, international humanitarian organisations operating across multiple continents, and complex manufacturing operations with diverse emission source profiles.

We have verified inventories ranging from single-site SMEs reporting Scope 1 and 2 emissions to multi-entity global operations spanning dozens of countries, with Scope 3 boundaries encompassing purchased goods and services, business travel, employee commuting, waste, water, upstream logistics and capital goods.

The practical consequence of this depth is that there is very little we have not seen — and very little that can surprise us. Data quality issues, calculation errors, boundary omissions, emission factor misapplication, consolidation mistakes, and methodological shortcuts: we know how to find them, how to assess their materiality, and how to help you put them right before they undermine the credibility of your reporting.

ISO 14066:2023 requires every member of the verification team and every independent reviewer to take six principles into account when performing their work. These principles are not aspirational — they are the operating posture under which competence is evaluated and applied.

Integrity — fair behaviour demonstrated through trust, honesty, diligence, observance of the law, maintenance of confidentiality, and the making of disclosures the law and the profession expect.

Fair presentation — truthful and accurate reflection of verification activities, findings, conclusions and reports, including the reporting of significant obstacles encountered during the engagement.

Due professional care — care and judgement exercised in proportion to the risk attached to the task and to the confidence clients and intended users place in our opinion.

Professional judgement — meaningful conclusions drawn from observation, knowledge, experience and authoritative sources, applied with professional scepticism.

Impartiality — active identification and management of threats to objectivity, including self‑interest (notably financial), self‑review, familiarity or trust, and intimidation.

Evidence‑based approach — conclusions supported by verifiable evidence, appropriately sampled, with confidence proportionate to the sampling performed.

ISO 14066:2023 § 6.2 defines the collective knowledge a verification team must hold. Every member of our team is required to demonstrate competence across the following areas, to the depth appropriate to their role.

Generic verification competence — the ability to apply core verification concepts including evidence gathering, risk assessment, misstatement identification, materiality determination, and the application of appropriate levels of assurance. These are the foundational requirements set by ISO/IEC 17029 and ISO 14064‑3 for any verification function.

GHG quantitative and qualitative information knowledge — understanding of the type, structure and typical content of organisational GHG inventories, including the requirements of ISO 14064‑1 and the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard; consolidation approaches, boundary-setting, emission source categorisation, and the distinction between Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions. Per § 6.2.3 this also covers relevant quantification methodologies; measurement and modelling approaches; monitoring techniques and calibration procedures and their consequences for data quality; the reporting principles of completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency and relevance; and the concepts of materiality and material discrepancy.

Programme and standard requirements — detailed knowledge of ISO 14064‑3 verification methodology, including planning, evidence gathering, materiality assessment, findings classification, review procedures, and statement issuance requirements. Knowledge of ISO/IEC 17029 and ISO 14065:2020 requirements for verification bodies, and awareness of relevant programme-specific rules (CDP, SBTi, CSRD where applicable).

Auditing competence — per § 6.2.7, knowledge of methodologies for data and information auditing and risk assessment; techniques for data and information sampling; and typical controls for data and information systems and the supporting processes that underpin them. Verification is an audit discipline first and a technical discipline second — and our team is trained accordingly.

Sector‑specific technical expertise — demonstrated experience with the emission source categories, data types and calculation methodologies relevant to specific sectors and engagement types. This includes, but is not limited to, combined heat and power allocation, refrigerant loss calculation, fleet and transport emissions, half-hourly electricity data analysis, international fuel consumption matrices, Scope 3 spend-based and activity-based calculation methodologies, and emission factor validation using DESNZ/DEFRA and international sources.

Knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. ISO 14066:2023 § 6.3.1 defines six skills that a verification team must collectively be able to apply, and which separate a competent team from a merely well-read one.

Identifying and evaluating risk — against criteria and materiality, and particularly when changes occur, when new information becomes available, or when nonconformity or misstatement becomes apparent during fieldwork.

Conducting verification activities — performing the procedures required to evaluate evidence against criteria, including document review, recalculation, analytical procedures and enquiry.

Evaluating evidence for sufficiency and appropriateness — judging whether the quantity and quality of evidence obtained is adequate to support the conclusion the engagement is required to reach.

Challenging evidence — applying professional scepticism and, where necessary, conducting independent research rather than accepting a responsible party’s assertion on trust.

Drawing appropriate conclusions — reasoning from the evidence to a defensible position on whether the statement is materially correct and conforms to criteria.

Communicating — about the verification process and its results, as expressed in findings, the verification opinion, and reports of factual findings, in terms that the client and intended users can act on.

Because Carbon Verification Limited is a greenhouse gas verification body, ISO 14066:2023 Annex F applies to us normatively — not as optional guidance. Annex F defines the additional expertise a GHG verification team must collectively hold beyond the generic requirements of § 6.

Annex F § F.3 also defines six sectors of GHG‑specific competence. Our team holds collective competence across all six as required by engagement: direct emissions and indirect emissions from imported energy (stationary and mobile combustion, electricity and heat production, flaring and fugitive emissions); process emissions (chemical reaction and non‑combustion industrial processes, carbon capture purification); agriculture, forestry and other land use (biomass sequestration, soil organic carbon, the nitrogen cycle); livestock (enteric fermentation and manure management); geological carbon storage (site evaluation, storage, seepage and permanence); and waste decomposition (landfill, composting, wastewater treatment and manure management).

Where an engagement falls outside our collective competence — for example, a project-level engagement in a sector we have not previously audited — we will say so, and we will either decline the engagement or supplement the team with an appropriately qualified technical expert under § 7. We will not accept engagements on the assumption that we can learn on the client’s inventory.

GHG reporting standards, emission factor sources, regulatory frameworks, and sector-specific methodologies evolve continuously. Our competence framework, aligned with ISO 14066:2023 § 9.2, includes ongoing training to ensure our team remains current with changes to ISO 14064‑1, ISO 14064‑3 and ISO 14066 itself; updates to the GHG Protocol and its guidance documents; annual revisions to DESNZ/DEFRA emission conversion factors; new and evolving regulatory requirements including CSRD, CBAM and SBTi validation; and sector-specific technical developments affecting emission source categories.

Continuing professional development is not restricted to technical content. Professional scepticism and professional judgement — the attitudes that turn knowledge into sound verification — are maintained through peer review, post-engagement debriefs, and structured discussion of cases where judgement calls were difficult.

We monitor personnel performance across engagements and use the findings to inform training priorities and competence development.

No individual conducts verification activities for Carbon Verification Limited without formal authorisation. Authorisation is granted on the basis of documented evidence of competence — covering the four evidence types defined in ISO 14066:2023 § 9.1: education; training; work experience relevant to the competence required; and tutoring or mentoring by more experienced staff, including other members of the verification team. We add ongoing performance monitoring as an internal fifth pillar.

Authorisation is specific to the functions the individual is authorised to perform. Team members, team leaders and independent reviewers are authorised separately, and authorisations for sector-specific engagements under Annex F are granted against demonstrated experience in that sector.

Team leaders are additionally assessed, under § 6.3.2, on their ability to evaluate the competence of team members, to identify risks associated with the engagement, to judge whether resources are adequate to the task, and to stand behind the conclusions reached in the verification opinion.

Impartiality threats are assessed before every engagement against the four categories defined in ISO 14066:2023 § 4.6: self‑interest (including financial interest); self‑review (where a person would be reviewing their own prior work); familiarity or trust (where relationships with the responsible party might compromise scepticism); and intimidation (where a person has a perception of being coerced). Where a threat cannot be eliminated, either the engagement is declined or documented safeguards are put in place and the residual risk is accepted by the team leader and independent reviewer on the record.

Personnel competence is reviewed at least annually. Where competence gaps are identified, training is provided and authorisation is adjusted accordingly.