HOW WECERT PROVIDES ASSURANCE

Verification and Validation Process

Understand how WECERT evaluates claims, reports, data, methodologies and projected outcomes—from application and engagement acceptance through evidence gathering, independent review and issuance of a verification or validation statement.
Each engagement is planned according to the applicable programme, specified criteria, intended use, level of assurance, materiality and risk of material misstatement.

Impartial Evaluation

Potential conflicts of interest and threats to impartiality are evaluated before an engagement is accepted.

Competent Assessment

Validators, verifiers, technical experts and reviewers are selected according to the subject matter and applicable programme.

Evidence-Based Conclusions

Conclusions are based on sufficient and appropriate evidence obtained through planned assessment activities.

Independent Review

The final decision is made only after an independent review by competent personnel who did not conduct the assessment activities.

Verification Vs. Validation

Verification and Validation Are Different Forms of Assurance

Verification and validation both evaluate claims against specified requirements, but they address different types of information.
The applicable programme determines whether an engagement is performed as verification, validation or a combination of both.

Verification

Historical or Current Information

Verification evaluates whether a claim concerning historical or current information is materially correct and conforms to specified criteria.
Verification commonly addresses information that has already been generated, measured, calculated, reported or implemented.

Examples may inculde

  • Historical greenhouse gas emissions
  • Organizational carbon inventories
  • Product carbon footprints
  • Environmental performance information
  • Sustainability data
  • Energy-consumption information
  • Water-use information
  • Reported reductions or removals
  • Compliance-related declarations
  • Other retrospective or current claims

Verification Question

Is the reported claim materially correct and supported by sufficient appropriate evidence?

VS

Validation

Future-Oriented Information

Validation evaluates whether the assumptions, limitations, methods and projected outcomes supporting a future-oriented claim are plausible and conform to specified criteria.
Validation commonly addresses plans, scenarios, projections, models or claims concerning expected future results.

Examples may inculde

  • Proposed greenhouse gas projects
  • Forecast emission reductions
  • Carbon-removal projections
  • Baseline scenarios
  • Future environmental performance claims
  • Planned sustainability outcomes
  • Project methodologies
  • Expected mitigation results
  • Forward-looking calculations
  • Other future-oriented claims

Validation Question

Are the assumptions, methods and projected outcomes supporting the claim reasonable and plausible?

VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION PROCESS

How WECERT’s Process Works

Every engagement is unique. The exact nature and extent of the activities depend on the claim, applicable criteria, intended use, level of assurance, materiality and assessed risks.

Phase 1 – Engagement Setup

The process begins when the applicant contacts WECERT and provides information concerning the proposed verification or validation.
Initial information normally includes:

  • Legal name of the applicant
    Responsible party
  • Type of engagement requested
    Subject matter
  • Claim or statement
  • Applicable criteria
  • Programme or scheme
  • Organizational and reporting boundaries
  • Reporting period or project timeframe
  • Intended users
  • Intended use
  • Requested level of assurance
  • Applicable materiality threshold
  • Relevant sites and locations
  • Requested completion date
  • Existing reports or supporting documentation

The information is reviewed to determine whether the proposed engagement can proceed to formal application review.

WECERT evaluates the submitted information to determine whether:

  • The applicant and responsible party are clearly identified
  • The claim is sufficiently defined
  • The subject matter is appropriate for verification or validation
  • The applicable criteria are suitable
  • The engagement boundaries are clear
  • The intended use and intended users are understood
  • The required level of assurance is established
  • Materiality requirements are defined
  • WECERT has the required competence and resources
  • The engagement falls within WECERT’s available scope
  • Applicable programme requirements can be fulfilled
  • The proposed timeframe is feasible
  • Potential impartiality risks have been identified
  • Any prior consultancy or related service creates an unacceptable conflict
  • Additional information may be requested before the application can be accepted.
    Submission of an application does not guarantee acceptance or issuance of a statement.

Before entering into an agreement, WECERT performs a detailed pre-engagement evaluation.

This evaluation determines whether the engagement is suitable and whether sufficient conditions exist to support a credible conclusion.

The evaluation may consider:

  • Nature and complexity of the subject matter
  • Characteristics of the claim
  • Availability of suitable criteria
  • Availability and traceability of evidence
  • Reliability of information systems
  • Geographic and organizational boundaries
  • Legal, contractual or programme requirements
  • Sector-specific risks
  • Required technical competence
    Need for site visits
  • Expected reliance on estimates or assumptions
  • Data uncertainty
  • Level of assurance
  • Materiality
  • Risk of material misstatement
  • Potential limitations affecting the engagement

WECERT may decline an engagement where appropriate criteria, competence, evidence, resources or impartiality safeguards are not available.

After successful application and pre-engagement review, WECERT prepares a proposal and engagement agreement.

The agreement normally defines:

  • Type of engagement
  • Responsible party
  • Subject matter
  • Claim or statement
  • Applicable criteria
  • Scope and boundaries
  • Reporting period
  • Level of assurance
  • Materiality
  • Assessment activities
  • Site locations
  • Required access to information
  • Responsibilities of the applicant
  • Responsibilities of WECERT
  • Confidentiality arrangements
  • Deliverables
  • Target schedule
  • Fees and commercial terms
  • Conditions governing use of the statement
  • Complaints and appeals arrangements

Verification or validation activities begin after the applicable agreement has been accepted.

Phase 2 – Planning

WECERT appoints a competent assessment team according to the requirements of the engagement.

  • Team selection considers:
    Technical sector
  • Subject matter
  • Applicable programme
  • Applicable criteria
  • Geographic and operational complexity
  • Data systems
  • Calculation methodologies
  • Regulatory environment
  • Required assurance competence
  • Language and cultural considerations
  • Need for technical experts

Before assignment, WECERT confirms the availability, competence, impartiality and confidentiality obligations of each team member.
The applicant may submit a legitimate objection to a proposed team member where a potential conflict of interest or other justified concern exists.

The assessment team develops an understanding of the applicant, responsible party, subject matter and environment in which the claim was prepared.

Strategic analysis may include review of:

  • Organizational activities
  • Products and services
  • Operational processes
  • Reporting structures
  • Applicable legal requirements
  • Industry characteristics
  • Information systems
  • Data flows
  • Governance arrangements
  • Internal controls
  • Previous assessments
  • Changes since earlier reporting periods
  • Use of external data or service providers

The strategic analysis supports identification of areas where material misstatements may occur.

WECERT assesses the risk that the claim may contain material errors, omissions, inconsistencies or misrepresentations.

Risk assessment may consider:

  • Complexity of calculations
  • Quality of source data
  • Manual data handling
  • Estimates and assumptions
  • Data gaps
  • Uncertainty
  • Changes in methodology
  • Changes in organizational boundaries
  • Changes in operations
  • Significant or unusual transactions
  • Reliance on external information
  • Weaknesses in internal controls
  • Previous findings
  • Potential fraud or intentional misstatement
  • Sector-specific risks

Higher-risk areas normally receive greater assessment attention.

Based on the strategic analysis and risk assessment, WECERT prepares a documented assessment plan.

The plan normally identifies:

  • Assessment objectives
  • Assessment scope
  • Applicable criteria
  • Level of assurance
  • Materiality
  • Assessment team
  • Assessment locations
  • Planned dates
  • Evidence-gathering activities
  • Data and information to be sampled
  • Site-visit arrangements
  • Interviews
  • Analytical procedures
  • Recalculation activities
  • Traceability tests
  • Technical review requirements
  • Reporting arrangements

The plan may be revised if new information or significant risks emerge during the engagement.

Phase 3 – Execution

The assessment team performs planned activities to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence.
Activities may include:
Document Review
Review of policies, procedures, reports, methodologies, calculations, assumptions, contracts and programme documentation.
Interviews
Discussions with personnel responsible for preparing, managing, reviewing or approving the claim.
Data Testing
Evaluation of source data, data transfers, aggregation methods and reported totals.
Traceability Testing
Tracing reported information back to original records and tracing selected source records forward into the final claim.
Recalculation
Independent recalculation of selected data, factors, formulas, conversions and reported results.
Analytical Procedures
Comparison of trends, ratios, historical results, expected relationships and unusual variations.
Process Observation
Observation of relevant data collection, measurement, monitoring or reporting activities.
Site Visits
Assessment of selected facilities, operations, projects or locations where necessary to obtain appropriate evidence.
Evaluation of Controls
Review of systems and controls intended to prevent, identify and correct errors or omissions.
Assessment of Assumptions
For validation, evaluation of whether assumptions, scenarios, models and projected outcomes are reasonable and supported.
The extent of evidence gathering depends on the engagement risk, level of assurance and materiality.

WECERT evaluates whether the evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to support a conclusion.

The assessment team considers:

  • Completeness of information
  • Accuracy of calculations
  • Consistency of methods
  • Reliability of source data
  • Traceability
  • Relevance of evidence
  • Appropriateness of assumptions
  • Conformity with specified criteria
  • Identified uncertainty
  • Effectiveness of internal controls
  • Unresolved limitations
  • Aggregate effect of identified misstatements

Additional evidence may be requested where the available information is insufficient.

Any identified errors, omissions, inconsistencies or departures from the applicable criteria are communicated to the responsible party.

Findings may include:

  • Incorrect source data
  • Calculation errors
  • Inappropriate emission or conversion factors
  • Omitted sources or activities
  • Boundary errors
  • Unsupported assumptions
  • Inconsistent methodologies
  • Inadequate records
  • Insufficient traceability
  • Misclassification
  • Unexplained variations
  • Nonconformity with programme requirements

The responsible party is given an opportunity to evaluate and, where appropriate, correct identified matters before the conclusion is finalized.

WECERT evaluates corrections and revised information submitted by the responsible party.

This may include:

  • Reviewing revised reports
  • Retesting corrected data
  • Recalculating adjusted results
  • Evaluating revised assumptions
  • Reviewing additional evidence
  • Confirming updated boundaries
  • Reassessing materiality
  • Considering the cumulative effect of remaining misstatements

Corrections are accepted only where they are supported by sufficient appropriate evidence.

Responsibility for the claim remains with the responsible party.

Phase 4 – Conclusion

After completing the planned assessment activities, the assessment team evaluates all evidence and prepares a proposed conclusion.

The team considers:

  • Whether the engagement scope was fully addressed
  • Whether sufficient appropriate evidence was obtained
  • Whether material misstatements remain
  • Whether the claim conforms to applicable criteria
  • Whether limitations affected the assessment
  • Whether the agreed level of assurance was achieved
  • Whether the proposed conclusion is appropriately supported
  • Whether the statement accurately communicates the result

The assessment team submits the engagement documentation and proposed conclusion for independent review.

An independent review is conducted by competent personnel who did not perform the validation or verification activities.

The independent reviewer evaluates whether:

  • The engagement was appropriately accepted
  • The team possessed the necessary competence
  • Impartiality requirements were fulfilled
  • The engagement was properly planned
  • Risk and materiality were appropriately addressed
  • Evidence-gathering activities were sufficient
  • Findings were appropriately evaluated
  • Corrections were properly assessed
  • The proposed conclusion is supported
  • Applicable programme requirements were fulfilled
  • The proposed statement is accurate and complete

The reviewer may request clarification, additional evidence or further assessment before recommending a decision.

The validation or verification decision is made by authorized competent personnel who were not involved in conducting the assessment activities.

The decision is based on:

  • Application and pre-engagement information
  • Engagement agreement
  • Assessment plan
  • Evidence obtained
  • Findings
  • Corrections
  • Final assessment documentation
  • Proposed conclusion
  • Independent review outcome
  • Applicable programme requirements

Possible outcomes may include:

  • Approval to issue an unmodified statement
  • Approval to issue a modified statement
  • Approval to issue an adverse conclusion
  • Disclaimer of conclusion
  • Request for additional assessment
  • Refusal to issue a statement

The available decision types may depend on the applicable programme.

Following an authorized decision, WECERT issues a verification or validation statement.

The statement may identify:

  • WECERT as the validation or verification body
  • Applicant
  • Responsible party
  • Subject matter
  • Claim or statement assessed
  • Type of engagement
  • Applicable criteria
  • Scope and boundaries
  • Relevant period or date
  • Level of assurance
  • Materiality
  • Responsibilities of the responsible party
  • Responsibilities of WECERT
  • Description of activities performed
  • Inherent limitations
  • Conclusion
  • Statement issue date
  • Unique statement number
  • Applicable programme or accreditation information

A statement applies only to the claim, scope, criteria, period and conditions identified within it.

Evidence-Gathering Methods

WECERT selects evidence-gathering methods according to the engagement risk, applicable programme, materiality and required level of assurance.

Source Data Testing

Recalculation

Traceability

Interviews

Analytical Review

Site Assessment

System and Control Evaluation

Assumption and Model Evaluation

Independent Review and Credible Decisions

Separation of Assessment, Review and Decision

WECERT maintains appropriate separation between those who perform assessment activities and those who review and authorize the final conclusion.

Assessment Team

Collects and evaluates evidence and prepares the proposed conclusion.

Independent Reviewer

Evaluates the engagement records, evidence, findings and proposed conclusion.

Authorized Decision-Maker

Determines whether the applicable statement may be issued.

Issued Statement

Communicates the authorized conclusion and applicable limitations.

The personnel who make the final decision are independent from those who conducted the verification or validation activibes.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Verification & Validation Process

Find answers to common questions about verification, validation, evidence requirements, materiality, assurance levels, decisions and issued statements.

No. Each application is reviewed to confirm that the claim, criteria, scope, competence, resources, impartiality and programme requirements are appropriate.

WECERT may request additional information or decline an engagement where the required conditions cannot be fulfilled.

Verification generally addresses historical or current claims and evaluates whether the reported information is materially correct.

Validation generally addresses future-oriented claims and evaluates whether assumptions, methodologies and projected outcomes are plausible.

A claim is the information, declaration, assertion, report, projection or statement submitted for verification or validation.

The responsible party remains responsible for preparing and presenting the claim.

The claim is evaluated against specified criteria defined by a standard, programme, methodology, regulation, contract or other suitable requirements.

The criteria must be appropriate for the engagement and available to the relevant parties.

Materiality concerns whether an error, omission or misstatement could influence decisions made by intended users.

Materiality may be quantitative, qualitative or both.

Reasonable assurance requires more extensive evidence gathering and normally supports a positively expressed conclusion.

Limited assurance involves less extensive activities and normally supports a negatively expressed conclusion.

Both require competent assessment and sufficient appropriate evidence for the stated level.

Not necessarily.

The need for a site visit depends on the applicable programme, engagement risk, complexity, available evidence, reporting boundaries and level of assurance.

Some programmes may require site visits.

Yes, where permitted by the applicable programme.

Identified errors or misstatements may be corrected before the final conclusion. WECERT evaluates whether the corrections are properly supported.

Authorized competent personnel who did not perform the assessment activities make the final decision after independent review.

A statement applies to the specific claim, scope, period and conditions identified within it.

Unlike a management system certificate, it does not normally operate through a surveillance and recertification cycle unless an applicable programme specifically establishes ongoing requirements.

Yes.

A statement may be revised, withdrawn or invalidated where material new facts are discovered, misleading use occurs, programme requirements are breached or the original conclusion is no longer supportable.

No.

A verification or validation statement concerns a defined claim. It does not certify an organization’s management system unless a separate management system certification process has been completed.

Ready to

Verify or Validate Your Claim?

Provide WECERT with information about your claim, applicable criteria, reporting boundaries, intended use and required level of assurance.
Our team will review the proposed engagement and explain the applicable requirements, assessment approach and next steps.