Who we verify for
Solutions by project type.
Verification scoped to how your project actually works — not a generic checklist stretched across every asset class. Each solution below draws on the accredited discipline it actually needs.
Every solution maps to one of Sustainext's four accredited disciplines. See all disciplines →
Solutions
- 01Renewable energy
- 02Bio carbon & nature-based
- 03Article 6.2 / 6.4
- 04Insetting & interventions
- 05Corporate GHG & value chain
- 06Compliance & emerging registries
At a glance
Explore all solutions
Click or hover a solution to preview it, then open the full detail below.
Renewable energy projects
Validation and verification for solar, wind, and other renewable generation and avoidance projects.
Covers solar, wind, small hydro, and other displacement-based generation registered under CDM-successor methodologies.
Renewable generation and avoidance projects — solar PV, wind, small hydro, and other displacement-based projects — remain one of the most widely registered project categories across voluntary and compliance carbon markets. Sustainext validates project design against the applicable methodology at the design stage, and verifies delivered generation, grid displacement factors, and additionality at each subsequent monitoring period.
Because these projects run for a decade or more, consistency across crediting periods matters as much as the initial validation — we verify against the same baseline and methodology version the project was registered under, flagging any methodology transitions the registry requires.
Standards & methodologies
Who this is for
- Independent power producers and renewable energy developers
- Utilities registering emission reduction projects
- Project proponents under CDM-successor methodologies, Verra, Gold Standard, or national compliance schemes
What we verify
- Baseline and grid emission factor accuracy
- Metering and generation data integrity
- Additionality and regulatory surplus
- Monitoring report accuracy across each crediting period
Afforestation, reforestation, soil carbon, and blue carbon (mangrove, seagrass) projects generate sequestration claims that are uniquely hard to verify at a distance — canopy cover, biomass accumulation, and land-use change over multi-year and multi-decade crediting periods. Sustainext verification for bio carbon projects draws on satellite and ground-based monitoring data from multiple independent providers, cross-checked against site-level field data and permanence risk assessments.
We deliberately don't rely on a single affiliated evidence source for this discipline — geospatial inputs are corroborated against independent imagery providers and field auditors, so the opinion doesn't rest on one data supplier's account of what happened on the ground.
Standards & methodologies
Who this is for
- Forestry and land-use project developers
- Conservation organisations
- Agroforestry and blue carbon project proponents
What we verify
- Land-use and canopy-cover change over the crediting period
- Biomass and soil carbon stock estimates against approved methodology
- Permanence and reversal risk, including buffer pool adequacy
- Leakage assessment across the project boundary
The Paris Agreement's Article 6 mechanisms — bilateral cooperative approaches under 6.2, and the centralized crediting mechanism under 6.4 — carry their own authorization, corresponding adjustment, and reporting requirements distinct from voluntary market methodologies. Sustainext verification under Article 6 confirms host-country authorization status, correct application of corresponding adjustments, and alignment with the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body's requirements where applicable.
Getting this discipline right matters more than most — a credit that's double-counted across a host country's own inventory and an international transfer undermines the entire mechanism, not just one project.
Standards & methodologies
Who this is for
- Project developers engaged in international carbon trading
- Host governments implementing cooperative approaches
- Buyers requiring corresponding-adjusted units
What we verify
- Validation of mitigation project design and methodology
- Verification of emission reductions and removals achieved
- Assessment of monitoring and reporting approaches
- Host country authorization and corresponding adjustment application
- First transfer of title and avoidance of double counting
Insetting — where a company invests directly in emissions reductions or removals within its own value chain rather than purchasing external offsets — requires a different verification posture than a tradable credit. There's no registry issuance event, but the claim still needs to be real, quantified against a recognized methodology, and clearly distinguished from the company's other reported reductions to avoid double-claiming.
Sustainext verifies the underlying intervention data and the resulting reduction or removal claim, independent of whether the outcome is retained internally or contributes to a supply-chain programme. This work draws primarily on our GHG Verification discipline, supported by ESG Assurance where the claim feeds into a broader sustainability report.
Standards & methodologies
Who this is for
- Corporates running supplier-level or landscape-level interventions
- Value-chain partners implementing fuel-switching or agroforestry within a supply shed
- Companies favoring internal claims over external offset markets
What we verify
- Intervention activity data and implementation evidence
- Emission reduction or removal quantification methodology
- Non-duplication against other reporting or credit claims
From a single facility's Scope 1 and 2 inventory to a full value-chain Scope 3 accounting exercise, Sustainext provides third-party verification aligned to the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064-1 / 14064-3. This is frequently the entry point for corporates preparing for mandatory climate disclosure regimes — CSRD, the SEC climate rule, and equivalent national requirements — that require external assurance over reported emissions data.
Where the inventory feeds into a broader sustainability report rather than a standalone GHG disclosure, this work is supported by our ESG Assurance discipline so the underlying numbers and the narrative built on them are checked to the same standard.
Standards & methodologies
Who this is for
- Corporates preparing regulatory climate disclosures
- Companies submitting science-based targets requiring assured baseline data
- Organisations reporting Scope 3 across a multi-tier supply chain
What we verify
- Organizational and operational boundary setting
- Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions calculation methodology
- Data quality and evidence trail across the reporting period
- Year-on-year consistency and restatement handling
Beyond the established voluntary registries, project developers increasingly need validation and verification support as compliance mechanisms and newer crediting programs expand — national compliance schemes, sector-specific standards, and emerging registries with their own rules and monitoring requirements.
Our approach stays the same regardless of which registry or scheme a project sits under: assess project design, methodology, monitoring systems, and reported climate impact against that programme's specific requirements before any credit is issued.
Standards & methodologies
Who this is for
- Project developers registering under national or sector-specific compliance schemes
- Developers working with newer or regional crediting programmes
What we verify
- Project design against the programme's specific rules and methodologies
- Monitoring systems and reported climate impact
- Compliance with that programme's monitoring and issuance requirements
Not sure which solution fits your project?
Tell us what you're working on and we'll scope the right verification pathway.
Start a conversation