ISO 14064-1:2018
Organization-level inventories
Verification of organizational boundaries, reporting boundaries, direct and indirect GHG categories, base-year information, methodologies, data controls and the final GHG statement.
Greenhouse gas assurance
Independent evidence for credible climate claims.
Validation and verification of organization- and project-level GHG statements, with a clearly defined scope, assurance level, materiality and conclusion.
Engagement architecture Evidence-led
Traceable
conclusion
conclusion
Every opinion is anchored to agreed criteria and sufficient appropriate evidence.
BoundaryDefined
MaterialityDocumented
ReviewIndependent
Applicable framework
One engagement.
Clearly separated standards.
ISO 14064-1 and ISO 14064-2 provide criteria for the GHG subject matter. ISO 14064-3 governs how the validation or verification is performed. Programme or regulatory requirements may apply in addition.
ISO 14064-2:2019
GHG projects
Validation or verification of project and baseline scenarios, sources, sinks and reservoirs, monitoring plans, reductions and removal enhancements.
ISO 14064-3:2019
V&V engagement method
The principles and requirements used to plan, perform, review and conclude validation and verification of a GHG statement.
Scope 1, 2 and 3 terminology
ISO 14064-1 formally uses categories of direct and indirect emissions. GHG Protocol Scope 1, Scope 2 and relevant Scope 3 terminology may be cross-referenced when both frameworks are used. The final boundary, sites, period, categories and exclusions are stated in the engagement agreement and opinion.
Confidence, defined
The assurance level is agreed before work begins.
No assurance engagement eliminates risk entirely. TRANS does not provide absolute assurance.
Verification
Reasonable assurance
A higher, but not absolute, level of confidence.
- More extensive risk assessment and evidence gathering
- Greater depth of testing, sampling and corroboration
- Normally expressed as a positive-form opinion
Validation or verification
Limited assurance
A lower level of confidence than reasonable assurance.
- Less extensive, targeted evidence-gathering procedures
- Normally expressed as a limited or negative-form conclusion
- Used for validation of projected or forecast information
Validation
Forward-looking assumptions, methods, project plans and forecast information.
Verification
Historical information and reported results assessed against defined criteria.
From claim to conclusion
A controlled, reviewable process.
The engagement is tailored to the statement and its risks. The route remains consistent: define, assess, test, evaluate, independently review and conclude.
Pre-engagement
Confirm the engagement type, applicable criteria, competence, resources, intended users and impartiality.
Agreement
Define the statement, boundaries, sites, reporting period, assurance level, materiality and deliverables.
Risk analysis
Identify significant sources, data risks, controls and evidence-gathering priorities.
Evidence
Review records, interview personnel, recalculate, sample and assess remotely or on site, as appropriate.
Evaluation
Evaluate detected misstatements, omissions and non-conformities, including corrections made.
Independent review
A competent person outside the engagement team reviews the work and conclusion.
Opinion
Issue an opinion and report stating the criteria, scope, period, assurance, materiality and conclusion.
Independence & impartiality
The opinion is protected from commercial influence.
Before accepting and throughout an engagement, TRANS identifies actual, potential and perceived conflicts. Where a threat cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, the engagement is declined, reassigned or withdrawn.
ObjectiveEvidence over influence
ProtectedControlled decision path
Required controls
Impartiality safeguards
- Conflict-of-interest checks before acceptance and throughout the engagement
- Personnel declarations covering relevant relationships and financial interests
- No assessment of work prepared by the assigned validation or verification team
- Fees and remuneration are not contingent on a favourable conclusion
- Technical conclusions are protected from sales and commercial pressure
- Independent review before the opinion is authorised
Materiality & outcomes
Numbers matter. Context can matter more.
Materiality considers quantitative thresholds and qualitative factors. A matter may be material because of its nature or circumstances even when it falls below a numerical threshold.
Detected matters are evaluatedAll identified misstatements, omissions and non-conformities are assessed.
Evidence shapes the opinionUnresolved material matters or insufficient evidence can modify or prevent an opinion.
Questions, answered
Before you commission an engagement.
Clear expectations at the start produce a stronger, more useful conclusion.
Ask about your statementWhat is the difference between validation and verification?
Validation evaluates whether assumptions, methods and projected or forecast information have a reasonable basis. Verification evaluates historical information and reported results against defined criteria.
Does TRANS issue an accredited ISO 14064 opinion?
No. The services described on this page currently result in an unaccredited independent opinion. Clients should confirm acceptance with their regulator, programme owner, customer or other intended user before engagement.
Can the engagement cover Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3?
Yes, subject to the agreed reporting boundary and criteria. ISO 14064-1 uses categories of direct and indirect emissions; Scope 1, 2 and 3 terminology may be cross-referenced when the GHG Protocol is also used.
Is a site visit always required?
The assessment format is determined by engagement risk, the nature of the claim, applicable programme requirements and whether sufficient appropriate evidence can be obtained. The agreed approach is documented during planning.
What happens when a material issue is found?
The responsible party is normally given an opportunity to correct the statement. Unresolved material matters, or insufficient appropriate evidence, may result in a modified opinion or an inability to issue an opinion.
Start with the statement
Define the claim before defining the work.
Send us the intended GHG statement, reporting period, criteria, intended users and required assurance level.