Working method
A directory should show its work.
This methodology describes the standard the project is building toward. The directory currently lists 51 vendors across 5 categories and is updated as research continues; these standards do not certify or endorse any vendor.
01
Scope
We will focus on vendors whose stated work relates to GHG accounting, emissions data, climate reporting, assurance or consulting. A category will describe a service area, not a regulatory outcome.
02
Evidence
Every material fact in a published record will have a source. Each material fact will also carry a last-reviewed date so readers can see how current the research is.
03
Verification
The editorial process will compare a vendor's own materials with available primary or otherwise appropriate sources. Missing evidence will stay missing; it will not be filled with assumptions.
04
Corrections
Readers and vendors can request a correction or removal. Requests will be assessed against the source record and the result will be documented through the corrections process.
Launch boundaries
What will not be published at launch
- Reviews, testimonials presented as reviews, star ratings and aggregate ratings.
- Claims that a vendor is approved, certified by this directory or guaranteed to achieve compliance.
- Paid listings. If paid placement is introduced later, it will be clearly labeled as paid placement and kept separate from editorial judgment.
- Legal, accounting or regulatory advice.
Compilation process
How vendor listings are compiled
Vendors were identified through research of publicly available web pages and the list is not exhaustive.
Inclusion is not an endorsement, approval, certification or ranking and no listing at launch is paid for.
Every fact is stored with the source URL and the date it was accessed.
The research was AI-assisted, drawn from public web pages, and has not yet been individually reviewed by a human editor, which is why most facts carry the label 'Vendor-stated, not independently verified'.
Descriptions are paraphrased summaries rather than vendor marketing copy.
Entries with unresolved doubts are held back as drafts and not published.
Accreditation evidence, where shown, is as displayed on the cited source page on the date shown and should be confirmed with the accrediting body.
Vendors and readers can request corrections via the corrections page.