Table of contents
- What do auditors actually look for when evaluating carbon reduction or carbon neutral claims?
- Where do the gaps most often surface in sustainability claims?
- How do Life Cycle Assessment (LCAs) hold up in audits?
- What about supplier data—can you rely on it?
- Internal validation vs. third-party verification—what’s the difference?
- When is a sustainability claim ready for review?
Making sustainability claims is easy. Proving them is much harder. As expectations around environmental reporting rise, food businesses need more than good intentions behind their carbon and ESG claims—they need data that stands up to scrutiny.
Whether communicating carbon reduction progress, net-zero commitments or broader ESG performance, organisations must be able to substantiate every claim with clear, traceable evidence.
To understand what makes a sustainability claim truly verifiable, we asked Marialena Kanellopoulou, Head of Sustainability & System Certification at FoodChain ID, to explain exactly what auditors look for, where businesses commonly fall short, and how to build audit-ready sustainability data that supports credible sustainability reporting.
What do auditors actually look for when evaluating carbon reduction or carbon neutral claims?
It’s all about traceability. Auditors want to see a clear connection from your headline figures back to the raw data. That means transparent methodologies, well-documented assumptions, and consistent reporting boundaries. Every number should connect logically, linking activity data, emission factors, and final calculations. These traceable sustainability claims are far more likely to stand up to scrutiny. Version control and internal review processes can also help demonstrate that your data hasn’t just been pulled together last minute – helping accelerate a smoother, more efficient verification process.
Where do the gaps most often surface in sustainability claims?
A common issue is unclear scope, as companies aren’t always specific enough about what parts of their operations their claims actually cover—whether that’s certain products, regions, or stages of the value chain. Another is inconsistency, especially when methodologies, emission factors or data sources change across reporting periods without clear justification.
There may also be insufficient evidence to support key assumptions, especially when relying on estimates or secondary data without proper documentation. And when public-facing claims don’t match the verified data behind the scenes, brand credibility can start to slip.
How do Life Cycle Assessment (LCAs) hold up in audits?
A life cycle assessment can be a powerful tool, but it doesn’t always meet the level of documentation required for audit purposes. Outputs are often too high-level, with limited access to the underlying data. Auditors may also question unclear system boundaries or the use of generic secondary data without strong justification. Ultimately, if you can’t show how the results were built, it can create challenges during third-party sustainability verification.
What about supplier data—can you rely on it?
Supplier data quality can vary significantly. In some cases, it’s robust and well-documented. In others, it lacks transparency or relies heavily on generic assumptions. Clear documentation, consistent methodologies, and ideally some form of third-party sustainability verification, can help make supplier data more reliable. The more visibility you have into how that data was produced, the stronger your overall claim becomes and the easier it is to maintain audit-ready sustainability data across your value chain.
By contrast, third-party sustainability verification involves an external, accredited body reviewing your data, methodologies, and evidence. This independent assessment strengthens confidence in your verifiable sustainability claims, particularly in light of increasing regulatory expectations.
Internal validation vs. third-party verification—what’s the difference?
Internal validation is a great starting point. It involves reviewing and confirming sustainability data against recognized standards, helping organizations build internal capability. But without an independent viewpoint, it can raise questions about bias, consistency, or greenwashing. It may also not be aligned with the expectations of Directive (EU) 2024/825, which requires environmental claims to be supported by clear, verifiable evidence and, where applicable, subject to independent third-party verification.
When is a sustainability claim ready for review?
The strongest claims tend to share a few common characteristics. These include a clear definition of the claim and its scope, alignment with a recognized standard, and full traceability between the claim and supporting data. Assumptions and methodological choices should be explicitly documented and consistently applied, and key data sources, including supplier inputs, are supported by verifiable evidence. Just as importantly, everything must line up—your calculations, your claims, and your external communications should all tell the same story. Don’t forget that any discrepancies should be reported transparently so they can be dealt with straightaway.
Download our infographic to assess whether your sustainability data is audit-ready and identify the gaps that could undermine third-party verification.
By Marialena Kanellopoulou
Head of Sustainability & System Certification in Cosmocert SA (A Foodchain ID Company), with focus in Certification, Verification and Regenerative Agriculture Certification