PCF verification according to ISO 14067: Process, cost and benefits of verified PCF software by Global Changer

A PCF verification is the independent audit of a Product Carbon Footprint by accredited auditors. This article explains when it is required, how it works, and what the verification of our PCF software means for the calculation and auditing of your Product Carbon Footprints.

ℹ️ Kiwa-Ecobility Experts has verified our PCF software and PCF methodology according to ISO 14067 and ISO 14040/44. The current Conformity Statement has been available since August 27, 2026, and is publicly viewable.

Key facts about PCF verification in brief

• In a PCF verification, an independent body checks whether a Product Carbon Footprint complies with the requirements of ISO 14067.

• Verification may only be carried out by bodies accredited according to DIN EN ISO/IEC 17029, issued in Germany by the DAkkS.

• Kiwa-Ecobility Experts has verified Global Changer's PCF software and PCF methodology according to ISO 14067.

• The reproducibility of the AI was also verified: same input, same result. Generative AIs like ChatGPT work with probabilities and cannot deliver this.

• Verified software is not synonymous with verified PCFs. This requires a separate audit.

• By verifying Global Changer's PCF software and methodology, individual PCFs can be verified faster and more cost-effectively by accredited auditing bodies like Kiwa.

What is a PCF verification according to ISO 14067?

In a PCF verification, an independent auditing body checks whether the Product Carbon Footprint of a product has been correctly determined and reported in accordance with ISO 14067. The methodology, data basis, calculation, and handling of uncertainties are reviewed.

ISO 14067 specifies how a Product Carbon Footprint is to be quantified and reported, building on ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 for Life Cycle Assessment. A verification checks whether a specific calculation or calculation approach meets these requirements.

Alongside ISO 14067, the GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard is the second authoritative set of rules for Product Carbon Footprints. Both are largely compatible in terms of methodology and are frequently referenced together in practice. For verifications in the DACH region, ISO 14067 is the standard audit benchmark.

At the end, a verification statement is issued. It is the foundation for credible climate communication, for passing Scope 3 data on to customers, and for reliable disclosures in sustainability reporting.

If you would first like to know exactly what a Product Carbon Footprint is and how it is calculated, learn more here: Calculating PCF with AI and LCA, PCF, and PEF compared.

ℹ️ CFP or PCF? The abbreviation PCF does not appear in ISO 14067. The standard speaks of the "carbon footprint of a product", abbreviated as CFP, and names the outcome document accordingly as the CFP study report. In practice, however, especially in the German-speaking B2B environment, PCF for Product Carbon Footprint has become established.

They mean the same thing. The difference only becomes relevant when reading standard texts and audit documents: where CFP is written, the Product Carbon Footprint is meant. Similarly, partial CFP stands for a partial PCF, i.e., a carbon footprint that does not cover the entire life cycle.

ISO 14067: Calculation, Validation, Verification, and Certification

These four terms are regularly used synonymously in the market, and this is the most common source of misunderstandings in PCF statements. They describe different processes with different results.

The distinction between validation and verification comes from the ISO/IEC 17029 standard, under which auditing bodies are accredited. TÜV Hessen explains the difference in detail. Validation applies to what points to the future, such as a calculation approach. Verification applies to what is based on real data.

What phrasing like "ISO-compliant" really means for your PCF

On PCF software provider pages, you will encounter very different phrasing around the topic of ISO conformity and verification for the same issue. Most frequently, you might read statements like "standard-compliant PCF", "according to ISO 14067", or "certified PCF software". They differ significantly in their evidential value, and the difference is not always directly recognizable from the outside. Here is what lies behind the phrasing:

None of this phrasing is dishonest in itself. It only becomes problematic when a statement from the top half of the table is presented as if it came from the bottom half. For you, this has a practical consequence: when you pass a value on to customers, you are liable for the statement you make, not your software provider.

Which questions clarify this in the provider meeting can be found below in the section on the audit grid.

Is there an ISO 14067 certification?

The standard does not provide for certification in the strict sense, but rather the option of external verification. The outcome document is called a verification or conformity statement. TÜV SÜD explicitly states that there is no certification under the greenhouse gas standards.

In practice, this means for you: offers described as "ISO 14067 certification" usually mean exactly this verification. In case of doubt, check the designation and content of the certificate, not the heading of the offer.

What Kiwa has verified in Global Changer's PCF software

Two Method Reports were verified, one on the methodology and one on the software, as well as the calculation tool itself in version 1.0. It was audited against ISO 14067:2018 as well as ISO 14040:2021 and ISO 14044:2021. Professionally, this concerned the methodology the tool applies and the report it outputs. Furthermore, the software was practically tested, with sample calculations, data import tests, and an audit of the AI results. Since the question "what was actually verified" remains open in almost every audit statement, here is our answer in detail.

Professional audit of PCF methodology and PCF report for verification

The basis was Chapter 7 of ISO 14067, which defines the requirements for the CFP study report.

• Declared unit and reference flow are shown. For a cradle-to-gate scope, the declared unit is the correct designation because no benefit can be derived from a balance up to the factory gate

• System boundaries, cut-off criteria, and actually applied cut-offs are documented

• The essential unit processes and the bill of materials are exportable in a traceable manner

• Data origin and data source are recognizable for each item, including the distinction between primary and secondary data

• The greenhouse gases taken into account are listed

• The characterization factors are named and are consistently based on IPCC AR6

• Allocation procedures and reference period are indicated

• Fossil, biogenic, and land-use emissions are reported separately

• The treatment of electricity is traceable, in particular the grid mix used

• A data quality assessment is available

• Sensitivity, uncertainties, interpretation, and limitations of the statement are presented

• It is disclosed which values are based on assumptions and where these assumptions come from

• The partial nature of the carbon footprint is clearly named in the report

• The results are additionally presented graphically

Practical testing of the PCF software for verification

The second part took place in the tool: sample calculations with different products, tests of data import, and a targeted review of the AI results. The focus was on the point that is the real question in AI-supported calculation: reproducibility.

Generative language models like ChatGPT or Copilot calculate answers probabilistically. Asking the same question twice can lead to two different breakdowns and two different datasets. This is disqualifying for verification because a result cannot then be reconstructed. Why this is so and how you can distinguish reliable from unreliable AI, we explain in our article on AI in sustainability management.

• The same input leads to the same breakdown into materials and processes and to the same selection of the emission factor dataset

• The prioritization between the background databases is documented and applied consistently

• The logic of region selection for datasets is traceably justified

• AI-supported assumptions are marked as such in the tool and in the report and can be distinguished from measured, supplier-side, and default values

• For each item in the inventory, it is traceable how it came about

• The methodology section in the tool indicates the system boundary, declared unit, allocation approach, GWP version, and reference year

• Bill of materials and unit processes can be fully exported as an audit file

Learn more about our AI-supported PCF calculation here.

Two deviations are identified in our certificate: Agribalyse datasets do not support the -1/+1 approach for the treatment of biogenic carbon, and production waste is not included by default.

This is exactly what you should look out for with any software provider: an audit report with no named deviations was either created very superficially or is not fully reproduced.

When does a Product Carbon Footprint need to be verified?

The Product Carbon Footprint is fundamentally voluntary. However, due to CSRD reporting and supply chain requirements, it is increasingly becoming a de facto necessity, and in individual product areas, it is now legally binding.

A simple distinction helps with prioritization. As long as PCFs only serve internal management to find hotspots and compare product variants, you do not need an auditing body. As soon as the value leaves the house, the situation changes.

Which regulations require verified PCF data?

Four frameworks are currently driving demand most strongly, each with varying degrees of binding force.

• EU Battery Regulation (EU) 2023/1542: PCF disclosure for certain battery types since February 2025, digital battery passport from February 2027 for batteries over 2 kWh. Without a complete PCF declaration, distribution in the EU market is not possible.

• CBAM: Importers require reliable cradle-to-gate data and demand it from their suppliers. The basis is Regulation (EU) 2023/956; the responsible authority in Germany is the German Emissions Trading Authority (DEHSt).

• EU Taxonomy: The technical screening criteria of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 require a life-cycle emissions disclosure verified by an independent third party for several economic activities.

• ESPR as well as EmpCo Directive (EU) 2024/825 and the planned Green Claims Directive: expand product-related requirements and tighten the burden of proof for environmental product claims. The ESPR is also the legal basis for the digital product passport.

What do customers and industry standards require?

Independent of regulation, pressure is built up through procurement and industry standards. In the automotive industry, the Catena-X PCF Rulebook specifies how values are to be calculated and exchanged, and brings its own verification framework. In the chemical sector, the TfS PCF Guideline fulfills the same function. For standardized data exchange across company boundaries, the PACT or Pathfinder Framework of the WBCSD has established itself.

The reason for the pressure is mathematically simple. The Product Carbon Footprints of your pre-products end up in the Scope 3 balance of your customers, usually in category 3.1. The more reliable your figure, the more reliable their balance sheet. In tenders in automotive, electronics, and retail, a missing or unverified PCF is increasingly becoming an exclusion criterion. How this data is further processed is described in the article on the calculation of Scope 3 emissions.

How does a PCF verification work?

Verification starts at the point where your calculation is complete and comprises three phases: you compile the project report, the auditing body reviews it and works through findings with you, after which you receive the verification statement.

The project report must contain: goal and scope, system boundaries, declared or functional unit with reference flow, all emission factors with source and database version, assumptions, cut-off criteria, allocation procedures, and a data quality assessment per position. Methodology conformity, completeness and plausibility of the data, correctness of the calculation, and handling of uncertainties are audited.

The time-critical part is the first phase, and it lies entirely with you. This is exactly where it is decided whether software saves you work or creates it: if it outputs the required documentation as a report, manual compilation is eliminated. If it only provides a value, the work is just beginning there.

ℹ️ Good to know: The generated PCF report from Global Changer's software corresponds to the required documentation and significantly facilitates the verification of individual PCFs for you.

Who is authorized to verify a PCF?

Verification may be carried out by bodies accredited as validation and verification bodies under DIN EN ISO/IEC 17029. The vbw Product Carbon Footprint Guideline explicitly names this accreditation as a prerequisite. In Germany, the DAkkS issues it.

Among the accredited bodies in the German-speaking area are Kiwa-Ecobility Experts, TÜV SÜD, TÜV NORD, DEKRA, TÜV Rheinland, DQS, LRQA, and GUTcert. Before commissioning, check not only the name but also the scope of the accreditation. This can be viewed via the directories of the auditing bodies and the accreditation body.

How much does a PCF verification cost and how long does it take?

There are no list prices. Auditing bodies prepare each offer individually, and the cost drivers mentioned are similar for all: product complexity, chosen system boundaries, and availability and quality of data.

For planning, another figure is more relevant than the fee. In many projects, the internal staff effort for documentation, supplier queries, and reworking findings significantly exceeds the costs of the auditing body. Clearing up the data situation beforehand reduces both items at the same time. Going into the audit with incomplete documentation means paying for the gaps twice.

The two stages of PCF verification: first the methodology, then the product

The part that makes a PCF verification complex and therefore expensive is not the individual PCF calculation, but understanding the methodology behind it and auditing it in detail. Therefore, verified values long remained individual projects for showcase products.

Instead of having every Product Carbon Footprint audited individually from scratch, the standard provides for a two-stage approach: first, the calculation approach is validated, then individual products are verified on this basis.

TÜV NORD describes the validation of the calculation approach according to Annex C as particularly helpful when a large number of individual PCFs for a product group are to be determined. DEKRA also recommends auditing the systematic approach if several PCFs are created within an organization based on the same procedure.

The same principle applies to software. If an auditing body has verified a provider's methodology and calculation tool, the methodological discussion is eliminated for each individual product. What remains per product is the review of the product-specific data.

Important to distinguish: Stage 1 does not turn any individual PCF into a verified PCF. An audited methodology is the prerequisite, not the substitute.

What are the benefits of auditing the calculation approach?

The benefits lie in three points. First, repeatability: the same rules apply across the entire portfolio, which is what makes comparisons between product variants permissible in the first place. Second, less friction, because the methodology discussion does not have to be held anew with every audit process. Third, an audit trail that is independent of individuals. If you have to explain in two years why a value was at 1.8 kg CO₂e, the answer lies in the documentation and not in the memory of a colleague who has left the company.

However, the benefit scales with the number of products. For a single product, the detour via Stage 1 is rarely worth it.

How do you recognize a reliable audit claim?

The classification of the phrasing above helps when first scouring a software provider's website. In a personal meeting, you will get to the core faster by asking directly.

The last line carries the most weight. Anyone who affirms that verified software automatically verifies individual results is shifting a green claims risk onto you. Ask the seven questions of every provider, including us. If you are currently comparing providers anyway, our specifications template for sustainability software helps to ask such questions in a structured way.

PCF calculation with Global Changer

The verified PCF software from Global Changer calculates Product Carbon Footprints with AI support from bills of materials and master data, with data quality assessment and source specification for each assignment. Both our PCF software and PCF calculation methodology are verified by Kiwa.

Our PCF reports: Two report formats for two situations

For your PCF calculation, you can have two different reports output by our software:

• The clear one-pager summarizes the result on one page: the value, the declared unit, the system boundary, and the distribution of emissions across the life cycle phases. It is the format for customer inquiries, procurement, and internal coordination.

• The detailed, iso-compliant report contains the documentation that an audit requires: system boundary and cut-off criteria, allocation procedures, greenhouse gases taken into account, characterization factors, treatment of electricity, data origin and data quality per item, separate disclosure of fossil, biogenic, and land-use emissions, reference period, as well as fields for interpretation, uncertainties, and limitations of the statement. This is supplemented by an export of the bill of materials and unit processes.

Exactly this report structure was the subject of the audit by Kiwa. The detailed report is therefore the template for phase one of a verification, i.e., for the part that is otherwise created manually.

However, it does not replace verification. A report from the software is an auditable document, not an audited one. Only when an accredited body has audited the product-specific data is a verified value created.

Scope of the audit

The audit by Kiwa-Ecobility Experts mentioned at the beginning refers to the requirements for the study report according to Chapter 7 of ISO 14067 as well as to the behavior of the calculation tool in version 1.0. The full scope of the audit and the documented deviations can be viewed as a certificate under this link.

The verification of individual Product Carbon Footprints is separate from this and is carried out as a separate step by Kiwa. Not part of the scope of the audit are the corporate carbon footprint and reduction planning, because other standards apply to these.

Frequently asked questions about PCF verification according to ISO 14067

How long does a PCF verification according to ISO 14067 take?

This depends heavily on your data situation and the PCF calculation tool (software) used. The actual audit by the auditing body (review, queries, reworking findings, verification statement) is usually manageable. In practice, the preparation takes significantly more time: data collection, supplier queries, and the complete documentation of the calculation.

With Global Changer, the effort for verification is significantly reduced. The documentation of the calculation is created automatically, and the reports and data exports generated in the tool contain all the information a verifier needs for the audit. Since the calculation methodology is verified by Kiwa in accordance with ISO 14067, the verification process is primarily about the data quality itself, no longer about the methodology behind it.

Is an external verification of PCFs according to ISO 14067 mandatory?

The standard does not generally prescribe it. It requires a critical review for public comparative assertions and recommends external verification for external communication. It becomes binding through other regulations, such as the EU Battery Regulation for certain battery types or the technical screening criteria of the EU Taxonomy, as well as through contractual requirements from customers.

How much does a PCF verification cost?

There are no fixed prices; every offer is calculated individually. The auditing bodies consistently name the same cost drivers: product complexity, chosen system boundaries, and availability and quality of data. In many projects, the internal effort for documentation and reworking exceeds the fee of the auditing body. For an offer from our partner Kiwa based on the calculation within our software, please contact us directly.

How long is a verified PCF valid?

Two cases must be distinguished here.

A PCF calculated with a verified methodology does not carry a formal term. The decisive factor is the period for which the value is representative according to the report, and ISO 14067 requires that this period be shown. In practice, such values are usually used for one to three years. An annual update is advisable because emission factors, electricity mix, and supplier data change constantly.

For a verified individual value, the auditing body determines what its statement refers to and binds it to the reference year, data status, and product configuration. Clarify this point before commissioning because handling differs between auditing bodies.

In both cases, the following applies: significant changes to the product or data basis make a recalculation necessary.

Which changes make a recalculation of the PCF necessary?

Significant changes include alterations to the recipe or bill of materials, a change of suppliers or manufacturing location, and altered energy procurement. A change in the background database or its version can also trigger a new calculation and audit. Define internally which changes trigger a reassessment so that the decision does not have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

Is a PCF automatically verified if I calculate it with verified software?

No. Verified software or methodology is a prerequisite, but not a substitute for auditing the specific value. The responsibility for the input data remains with the calculating company. For a verified individual value, a separate audit by accredited auditors is always required.

Can an AI-supported PCF calculation be verified at all?

Yes, provided it is reproducible. An auditing body tests whether the same input reliably leads to the same breakdown and the same emission factor dataset, and whether AI-supported assumptions are marked as such in the report. Without this traceability, verification is not possible.