Resources & Insights
Briefings, guidance notes, and analysis on the standards, regulations, and methodologies shaping the assurance market worldwide.
Practitioner-led articles on what is actually happening in GHG verification, climate disclosure, and global carbon market development. Written by the people doing the work.
Plain-language briefings on regulations as they emerge, including EPA GHG reporting rules, state disclosure mandates, IFRS S2/ISSB adoption, and EU CBAM implications for exporters worldwide.
Live and on-demand sessions on technical assurance topics — ISO 14064-3 implementation, materiality in limited vs. reasonable assurance, and Article 6 corresponding adjustments.
Technical guidance on ISO 14064 application, materiality thresholds, evidence requirements, and best practice in GHG verification for complex organisations.
Regulators worldwide are increasingly mandating Tier 2 and Tier 3 methodologies for oil and gas operators. Here is what these directives actually require, and what operators need to do before year-end.
Read more
The difference matters more than most sustainability teams realise. Regulators, investors, and lenders treat these two opinion types very differently. Understanding which applies to your situation is the first decision to get right.
Read more
Scope 3 represents the majority of emissions for most organisations — and it is the hardest to verify. A practitioner's walk-through of what credible Scope 3 verification actually looks like.
Read moreFrom verification timelines to the difference between ISO standards — answered clearly and without jargon.
Ask us directlyVerification is backward-looking: it confirms that historical GHG data — emissions already reported — are accurate and comply with the stated methodology. Validation is forward-looking: it confirms that projected GHG reductions in a planned project are based on sound methodologies and realistic assumptions. Both are covered by ISO 14064-3 and both are services EDAT provides.
Limited assurance gives a moderate level of confidence — the verifier concludes that nothing has come to their attention to suggest the GHG statement is materially misstated. Reasonable assurance gives a high level of confidence — the verifier concludes positively that the statement is fairly stated. Reasonable assurance requires more evidence, deeper testing, and is typically required for regulated disclosures and most carbon market registries.
Four standards form the core. ISO 14064-1 covers organisational GHG inventories. ISO 14064-2 covers GHG project-level accounting. ISO 14064-3 specifies how verification and validation are conducted. ISO 14065 specifies the requirements for the verification bodies themselves. ISO/IEC 17029 is the umbrella standard for all validation and verification bodies, and ISO 14066 sets competence requirements for verifiers.
ISO 14065 is the international standard that GHG verification bodies must meet to be accredited by a recognised accreditation body (such as ANAB, UKAS, or JAS-ANZ). Accreditation confirms the body's independence, competence, and quality management system. Regulators and markets increasingly require ISO 14065-aligned verification before accepting GHG data — and in some regimes, formal accreditation is mandatory.
For most organisations, a first-time GHG verification under ISO 14064-3 takes between 6 and 14 weeks from engagement start to verification statement — depending on the scope, data quality, complexity of operations, and number of sites. Subsequent reverification engagements are typically faster as the data systems and evidence chains are already established.
Verification cost depends on the scope (Scope 1 only vs. Scope 1, 2, and 3), the number of facilities, the assurance level (limited or reasonable), and the complexity of your data systems. EDAT scopes every engagement individually based on these factors. Contact us to discuss your specific situation and receive an indicative range.
No. To preserve impartiality under ISO 14065, we do not provide consulting services that would create a conflict on engagements we then verify or validate. We can deliver training and capability-building, but technical advice on inventory design or project structuring is offered only outside of the verification scope. This structural separation is what makes our opinions defensible.
A short briefing every two weeks on the regulations, standards, and market shifts shaping climate assurance worldwide. Written by practitioners. No marketing.
