“Isn’t this just an ESG tool?”
Four kinds of product and service already sit around sustainability reporting. EcoVeraZ sits beneath all four and works with each of them. Here is the boundary, drawn plainly, so you can tell what you already have and what is still missing.
Everything above the number assumes the number
Most organisations we speak to already own at least one sustainability product, and often three. The question is rarely which of them to choose. It is what each one quietly assumes before it starts work.
A rating agency assumes the disclosure it reads is accurate and complete. Accounting software assumes the activity data typed or imported into it is right, and that nobody will ask where it came from. A reporting suite assumes the figure entered in a cell was settled somewhere else. An assurance firm assumes the organisation can produce evidence when it is requested — and then spends weeks finding out whether that is true.
Each assumption points at the same missing thing: a record, a reviewer and a check standing behind the figure, kept continuously rather than reconstructed at year end. That is the layer EcoVeraZ builds. It is why the platform makes no ranking, issues no opinion and lays out no report of its own.
What each is for, and where we fit.
Written by category, not by company. Every organisation in these categories does work EcoVeraZ does not do, and most of our conversations end with the two sitting side by side.
| Category | What it is for | What it assumes | Where EcoVeraZ fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESG rating and benchmarking agencies | Scoring and ranking organisations for investors, indices and procurement, from disclosed and public information. | That what you disclosed is accurate, complete and comparable. | We prepare the disclosure with its evidence attached, so what the agency reads is supported and a query can be answered in an afternoon. We rate nobody. |
| Carbon and sustainability accounting software | Calculating footprints — activity data multiplied by factors — building inventories, targets and reduction plans. | That the activity data going in is correct, and that no one will later ask which meter it came from. | We hold the evidence beneath the activity data: the meter, the invoice, the manifest, the reviewer, the cross-check. The calculation can stay where it is. |
| Reporting suites and disclosure managers | Collecting datapoints from across a group and laying a report out in a framework’s structure. | That the number in the cell was already settled, by someone, somewhere. | We are that somewhere. Figures arrive recorded, reviewed and cross-checked, each carrying a trail the reader can follow back to the record. |
| Assurance firms and verification bodies | An independent professional opinion on whether a disclosure is fairly stated, under a recognised assurance standard. | That the organisation can produce evidence on request, sample by sample. | We prepare that evidence continuously, so the work starts from evidence instead of from a request for it. We issue no opinion of our own, and we never replace theirs. |
Categories are described generically. EcoVeraZ makes no statement about any named product, firm or agency, and nothing here should be read as a comparison of quality.
Beneath the reporting, above the meter.
Operations
Meters, sensors, fuel logs, ERP and utility data, weighbridges, manifests, supplier declarations and documents — the records an organisation already produces, wherever they already live.
EcoVeraZ
Every figure recorded against its source, reviewed by a person who did not prepare it, cross-checked against an independent reference, scored for confidence and issued with its trail intact.
Readers and reviewers
Boards, reporting suites, rating agencies, assurance firms, lenders, customers and regulators — each starting from evidence rather than from an assertion, and each free to check.
An honest way to tell.
“We cannot produce the number at all.”
Then a carbon accounting tool, or a competent consultant, is the right first move — and it is worth keeping the evidence from day one rather than reconstructing it in year three, because reconstruction is where the cost actually lands.
“We can produce it, but we cannot defend it.”
The number exists in a spreadsheet and nobody can say which meter, which invoice or which assumption it came from. This is the evidence problem, and it is the one EcoVeraZ was built for.
“We are asked for the same evidence three times a year.”
Assurance, a lender, a customer questionnaire and a rating query, each reconstructing the same trail. Keeping the trail once, continuously, is cheaper than assembling it four times.
Boundaries we keep
These are not caveats added at the end of a sales conversation. They are the reason the outputs are worth anything to the people who read them.
- We do not rate, score or rank organisations against each other. The Data-Trust Score describes how well a figure is supported by evidence, not how well an organisation is performing.
- We issue no assurance opinion and certify compliance with no framework. Those belong to the professionals and authorities who hold that mandate.
- We do not replace your auditor, assurer or verification body. We shorten their work by handing them evidence rather than a request list.
- We do not claim coverage we cannot show. Every framework capability on this site carries Demonstrated, Prepared or Planned, and Planned is never counted as coverage.
- We do not publish customer data, and customer data is not used to train models — for EcoVeraZ or for any provider.
Common questions
Do you compete with our carbon accounting platform?
No. Calculation and evidence are different jobs. If your accounting platform computes the inventory well, it can keep doing so — EcoVeraZ holds the records, reviews and cross-checks beneath the activity data it consumes, and passes the evidence on with the figure.
Could a rating agency use what EcoVeraZ produces?
They read what you disclose, and an evidence-backed disclosure answers their follow-up questions faster. We have no relationship with any rating agency, we do not submit on your behalf, and we make no claim about how a rating would change.
Will this shorten our assurance engagement?
That is the intent and it is what customers tell us they want, but the scope, hours and fee of an assurance engagement are set by the assurance provider under their own standard, not by us. What we can say plainly is that the evidence is prepared before it is asked for rather than after.
Is the Data-Trust Score a rating?
No. It is a confidence indicator from 0 to 100 describing how well one figure is supported — recorded, reviewed, cross-checked, intact. A high score on a bad number is still a bad number, well evidenced.
We already have a reporting suite. What would change?
What arrives in it. Instead of a figure typed into a cell by whoever had the spreadsheet, each figure arrives with its record, its reviewer, its cross-check and its confidence — so the suite lays out numbers that can survive a question.
EcoVeraZ is not an ESG rating agency and does not issue assurance opinions. Framework and category names are used for identification only.
See the evidence behind your numbers.
A 30-minute walkthrough on your own data, with your own questions.