A bank does not need a sustainability report. It needs a defensible number it can put in a credit file and defend to its own auditor two years later.
Three questions decide whether a carbon claim supports a financial decision: is the number traceable to a source document, is the method stable enough to compare two borrowers, and is there somebody to hold responsible if it is wrong. A verified statement answers all three; a sustainability report usually answers none.
| Question | What satisfies it | What does not |
|---|---|---|
| Traceability | Statement reference plus data lineage to meter records | A PDF with a logo |
| Comparability | Same method version and boundary across borrowers | Each borrower's own methodology |
| Accountability | Named verifier, signed technical review | “Reviewed internally” |
| Level | What it means | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| Screening | Desk review of published data | Portfolio triage, no covenant |
| Agreed-upon procedures | We check specified items and report facts only | Covenant monitoring |
| Limited assurance | Conclusion with a stated uncertainty | Loan pricing, ESG-linked terms |
| Verification statement | Full re-derivation against a published method | Collateral, underwriting file |
Most carbon claims marketed to financial institutions sit at level one and are priced like level three. The difference in cost is roughly a factor of six, and it is visible in the engagement letter — if there is one.
| Stage | Days | From you | You get |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoping | 1 | What decision this feeds | Assurance level recommendation |
| Document review | 2 | Statements, ledgers, meter records | Lineage map |
| Testing | 3 | Access to source data | Sample results, exceptions |
| Reporting | 2 | Nothing | Assurance report with conclusion |
A cooperative borrows against a verified low-carbon supply agreement. The lender needs to know that the label the buyer pays for will keep being issued, so the file has to cover not the last label but the process that produces the next one.
| What the lender asked | What we tested | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Is the claim real? | Re-derived 12 labels from the platform register | 12/12 matched |
| Can it be repeated? | Reviewed the label generation process and sampling plan | Process confirmed |
| What breaks it? | Baseline drift and meter failure scenarios | Two covenants proposed |
Yes — we produce the evidence, they form the financial opinion. We do not opine on creditworthiness.
Not by itself. Bond frameworks require additional reporting and, in most markets, an accredited verifier.
The statement limits the claim to what was tested. Anything beyond that boundary is the issuer's liability, and we say so in the report.