Reviewing & Validating Emissions Data

A rigorous review and validation process is integral to the credibility and reliability of an emissions inventory. Even with carefully selected estimation approaches and well-structured ERP data, there remains potential for misinterpretations, incomplete information, or misapplied emission factors. Instituting a formal review mechanism ensures that the final emissions data withstands scrutiny from auditors and stakeholders, and aligns with the GHG Protocol’s emphasis on completeness, consistency, transparency, and accuracy.

The Rationale for Data Review and Validation

While ERP-derived expenses and AI-driven data processing can achieve high levels of detail, certain challenges persist:

• AI Interpretation Limitations: AI models may struggle with vague description, context-specific codes, abbreviations, or internal naming conventions used in a particular company’s ERP system. For instance, the AI may misclassify a specialized input material if it is labeled in a non-standard way. Such scenarios necessitate human oversight and intervention to ensure the correct emission factor is applied.

• Ensuring Methodological Integrity: Validation helps confirm that the principles of the GHG Protocol are not inadvertently compromised. By double-checking lines, users can verify that the chosen emission factors are appropriate, that biogenic carbon is excluded where required, and that the assumptions remain consistent with accepted standards.

• Complex Category Assignments: In rare cases ERP data do not neatly fit into a single GHG category without additional judgment. Without reviewing these entries, organizations risk misallocating emissions to the wrong scope or category. For more information please refer to our article on Handling Complex Scenarios

In essence, review and validation act as safeguards, ensuring that the calculated emissions genuinely reflect the underlying operations and that any complexities are addressed before final reporting.

Establishing a Review and Validation Framework

A structured review framework involves systematically examining and, if necessary, revising the processed data. Key actions include:

1. Initial Screening of Data:
   Confirm that all relevant expense lines from the ERP system are included and that no major emission sources appear missing. This initial pass helps ensure completeness is maintained.

2. Addressing Errors and Warnings:
   Leverage functionalities in the platform’s Data Pipeline to identify lines flagged with errors or warnings. These indicators highlight data points that may require immediate attention, such as missing units, inconsistent values, or incomplete documentation.

3. Reviewing Correctly Processed Lines:
   Not all inaccuracies manifest as errors or warnings. Lines that have been processed without technical flags may still be misaligned with the company’s actual operations or may require a more accurate emission factor. Regularly reviewing a sample of “successful” lines ensures that the AI-driven processing aligns with the organization’s understanding of the underlying activities.

4. Using the Data Optimizer Feature:
   BeWo’s Data Optimizer provides a structured environment for reviewing and refining emissions data. With the Data Optimizer, users can systematically:

   • Filter and sort data to identify high-impact lines for closer inspection.
   • Edit emission factors and categories when initial assumptions prove incorrect.
   • Approve lines that are confirmed accurate, thereby establishing a consistent, repeatable workflow.

   For more technical details on the Data Optimizer and how to implement a consistent review workflow, refer to our Data Optimizer Overview.

By integrating tools like the Data Optimizer into the review process, organizations reinforce the consistency principle of the GHG Protocol. Consistency is crucial for meaningful year-over-year comparisons and for maintaining a coherent baseline that can be updated if new information emerges.

Correction and Recalculation

Upon identifying issues through the review process, users can implement corrections directly within the platform. These may include updating the emission factor, reassigning the category, or adding missing supplier statements. After adjustments are made, recalculating emissions ensures that the updated data is accurately reflected in the final inventory.

This iterative refinement not only improves the current reporting cycle but also lays the groundwork for more efficient, accurate reporting in subsequent years.

Continuous Improvement and Auditability

A well-documented review and validation process enhances audit readiness. By recording the rationale behind corrections and maintaining detailed change logs, organizations facilitate external verification and streamline any future audits or reviews. Auditors can trace each emission line back to its original data source, understand the justifications for adjustments, and confirm that the methodology adheres to GHG Protocol principles.

Moreover, this process supports continuous improvement. As suppliers begin providing better data or internal cataloging becomes more granular, organizations can incorporate these enhancements swiftly. Over time, this ongoing refinement fosters more accurate, trustworthy emissions inventories that benefit both internal decision-making and external stakeholder confidence.

---

By systematically reviewing and validating emissions data, organizations uphold the highest standards of quality and alignment with the GHG Protocol. This diligent scrutiny ensures that final reported figures are not only consistent and transparent but also robust enough to withstand the scrutiny of auditors, investors, and the broader sustainability community.