Emissions fall, yet offset quality and claims feel shaky
Question
Our reported emissions are down and we announced “net-zero for scope 2.” But procurement leaned harder on credits, project vintages skew older, retirements bunched near reporting dates, and a supplier’s registry update lagged. Investors ask about “quality” and regulators probe double-counting. Why do our claims feel fragile when emissions declined?
Answer ✅
Totals can improve while claim quality thins. If offsets shift to older vintages, project risk rises, retirements slip to the deadline, or supplier attestations lag, you can show “lower emissions” while convertibility and credibility wobble. SSM-Audit adds a stability band beside what you already track so you see whether decarbonization is calm, verifiable, and repeatable—not just accounting-dependent.
What the bands would have shown 📊
• Abatement vs activity consistency sliding A+ -> A0 (activity intensity barely changes while credits rise)
• Offset quality stability degrading to A- (higher share from low-additionality or reversal-prone projects)
• Vintage/project mix stability weakening A0 -> A- (older vintages; narrow geography/project types)
• Delivery/retirement timeliness tilting A0 -> A- (credits retired right before disclosure)
• Exclusivity/double-count risk dipping A0 -> A- (registry and jurisdiction overlaps unresolved)
• Supplier verification cadence softening A+ -> A0 (slower third-party attestations and MRV packets)
What to do now 🛠️
- Band the claim stack: abatement consistency, offset quality, vintage/project mix, delivery/retirement timeliness, exclusivity risk, supplier verification cadence—review monthly.
- Prefer abatement: when abatement-consistency band < A0, raise on-site/PPAs and cap offsets share until intensity improves.
- Tighten quality floors: if quality band < A0, require
ex-ante additionality evidence,ex-post MRV, andreversal buffers; blacklist high-risk methodologies. - Refresh mix: when vintage/mix band < A0, set minimum new-vintage share and diversify geography/method.
- Retire early and evenly: if retirement band < A0, schedule quarterly retirements; block “end-period bunching.”
- Prove exclusivity: when exclusivity band < A0, require registry reconciliation letters and jurisdictional mapping before counting.
How SSM-Audit helps (practicalities) 🌟
• No additional infrastructure: runs beside your emissions inventory, procurement logs, and registry exports.
• Numbers unchanged: emissions, credits, and retirements remain as reported; stability is a read-only overlay.
• Easy to use: spreadsheet/BI friendly; a lightweight monthly panel for sustainability, finance, and audit.
• Universal language: A++ / A+ / A0 / A- / A– aligns ops, procurement, and disclosure teams quickly.
CLI 💻 — try our mini Calculator to identify the drift
(Mini CLI Download Page)
Feed your CSVs and see bands and drift at a glance (numbers unchanged).
# Abatement vs activity consistency (intensity change vs credit share)
ssm_audit_mini_calc esg.csv --kpi "Abatement Consistency" \
--out bands_abatement.csv --plot_kpi "Abatement Consistency" --build_id esg
# Offset quality stability (methodology/additionality/reversal risk)
ssm_audit_mini_calc esg.csv --kpi "Offset Quality Stability" \
--out bands_quality.csv --plot_kpi "Offset Quality Stability" --build_id esg
# Vintage/project mix stability (vintage freshness, geo/method diversity)
ssm_audit_mini_calc esg.csv --kpi "Vintage/Project Mix Stability" \
--out bands_mix.csv --plot_kpi "Vintage/Project Mix Stability" --build_id esg
# Delivery/retirement timeliness (procure -> retire cadence)
ssm_audit_mini_calc esg.csv --kpi "Retirement Timeliness" \
--out bands_retire.csv --plot_kpi "Retirement Timeliness" --build_id esg
# Exclusivity/double-count risk (registry/jurisdiction reconciliation)
ssm_audit_mini_calc esg.csv --kpi "Exclusivity Risk Stability" \
--out bands_exclusive.csv --plot_kpi "Exclusivity Risk Stability" --build_id esg
# Supplier verification cadence (MRV/assurance packet timeliness)
ssm_audit_mini_calc esg.csv --kpi "Supplier Verification Cadence" \
--out bands_verify.csv --plot_kpi "Supplier Verification Cadence" --build_id esg
Outputs you will get:
• CSVs for each KPI (e.g., bands_quality.csv).
• Drift charts per KPI (--plot_kpi) showing exactly where credibility and timing slip.
• Optional alerts if you enable thresholds.
Technical notes
Representation: x = (m, a) with a in (-1, +1)
Collapse parity: phi((m,a)) = m
Order-invariant pooling:
U = sum(w_i * atanh(a_i))
W = sum(w_i)
a_out = tanh( U / max(W, eps_w) )
Typical bands (example):
A++: a >= 0.75
A+: 0.50 - 0.75
A0: 0.25 - 0.50
A-: 0.10 - 0.25
A--: a < 0.10
Navigation
Back: SSM-Audit Q&A Series – Non-profits & Philanthropy (Question 48)
Next: SSM-Audit Q&A Series – Agriculture & Post-Harvest (Question 50)
Page disclaimer
Illustrative scenario for research and education. Observation-only; do not use for critical decisions without independent validation.
SHUNYAYA 