Standards and reporting
ESOS software
ESOS software should make energy records and assessment evidence easier to review, while the participant, assessor and responsible officers retain their own roles.
What should ESOS software actually help you do?
Choose software for the energy, audit and evidence tasks your organisation needs to manage rather than assuming a product performs the statutory assessment Energy calculation Evidence pack.
Module 01 / 04
Collect
Obtain source records with units and periods.
Module 02 / 04
Reconcile
Connect records to the participant’s energy population.
Module 03 / 04
Review
Give authorised reviewers access to methods and decisions.
Module 04 / 04
Retain
Export evidence supporting the completed work.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The ESOS overview explains the scheme, while this guide addresses the separate buying decision.
Which software job are you buying?
Separate collection, analysis, audit support and follow-up when comparing proposals so feature lists answer the same brief.
| Job | Useful demonstration | Human decision remaining |
|---|---|---|
| Energy collection | Import records with original units and evidence links | Confirm population and completeness |
| Audit support | Connect observations and calculations to opportunities | Evaluate the audit and recommendations |
| Evidence management | Retrieve the data behind a reported total | Review methods and exceptions |
| Follow-up | Track proposed and implemented measures separately | Approve the plan or update |
| Submission preparation | Export reviewed information | Confirm and make the actual notification |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask which parts are software features, implementation services or additional professional work.
Can the system represent your energy population?
Test whether the software records the relevant assets, activities, energy sources and reference-period decisions without treating one imported invoice list as the complete boundary Regulation 22.
Module 01 / 04
Participant
Identify the organisation and group context.
Module 02 / 04
Source
List meters, fuels and other relevant inputs.
Module 03 / 04
Period
Keep source coverage and reporting periods explicit.
Module 04 / 04
Gaps
Separate missing evidence from actual zero consumption.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask the provider to show how a new site or duplicated source is added and reviewed.
A total is easier to trust when the expected records can be compared with the records actually received.
The ESG data collection guide supplies useful owner and status fields for the brief.
What should the demonstration dataset contain?
Give each shortlisted provider the same fictional inputs so a polished demonstration cannot hide different assumptions.
| Fictional input | What to ask the provider | What to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity invoice in kWh | Import it with its source reference | Original amount and period retained |
| Fuel record in litres | Explain the conversion into an energy measure | Method and units visible |
| Missing month | Keep it visibly unresolved | No invented zero or automatic completion |
| Duplicate invoice | Show identification and correction | Original trace retained |
| Changed site owner | Reassign responsibility without losing history | Review and access trail |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A simplified demo can expose basic workflow limitations without pretending to replicate every assessment condition.
Can a reviewer reproduce coverage and ratios?
Module 01 / 04
Denominator
Identify the total consumption used.
Module 02 / 04
Selection
Keep included and excluded areas visible.
Module 03 / 04
Purpose
Connect consumption to the relevant organisational purpose.
Module 04 / 04
Ratio
Retain the activity denominator and its evidence.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask for the working table behind a coverage percentage rather than only a coloured gauge.
A change in the source total should prompt review of the coverage decision instead of preserving an old approved percentage silently.
The calculation should remain understandable when exported and reviewed by a different person.
How can a change test reveal weak controls?
Use this fictional revision test to see whether an amended source record reaches the affected outputs.
| Demonstration change | Expected review behaviour | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Replace one provisional energy value | Recalculate the relevant total | Old value, new value and reason |
| Increase an omitted source | Revisit coverage rather than retain a label | Updated selection working |
| Correct an activity denominator | Recalculate the relevant ratio | Definition and supporting record |
| Change the reporting period | Identify incompatible source coverage | Period exception list |
| Reopen an approved calculation | Show the review status clearly | Authorised change record |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
This tests the software’s behaviour, not whether the buyer’s chosen coverage or ratio is legally appropriate.
Have the responsible reviewer confirm the final treatment rather than asking an automated rule to decide every exception.
Does the platform support the audit evidence?
Look for a way to connect site records, analysis and recommended opportunities without confusing a document repository with an energy audit Audit requirements Opportunity analysis.
Module 01 / 04
Site record
Retain the sites considered and visited.
Module 02 / 04
Analysis
Link consumption profiles and operational assumptions.
Module 03 / 04
Opportunity
Keep the recommended measure and calculations together.
Module 04 / 04
Review
Record questions and the final reviewed version.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A data platform cannot make a site representative merely because it appears in a sample list.
The energy audit guide explains the required analysis and records.
If external support is included, compare it with an ESOS consultancy brief so the named professional work is explicit.
What should an opportunity export show?
Ask the provider to export a fictional opportunity with its assumptions and review status rather than just a projected saving.
| Export field | What the reviewer needs | Demo check |
|---|---|---|
| Measure identity | Stable link to the observation | Same reference across records |
| Purpose and category | Relevant classification decision | Editable with change history |
| Energy estimate | Annual reduction and calculation basis | Units and assumptions retained |
| Financial working | Costs, benefits and payback assumptions | Inputs distinguishable from results |
| Implementation programme | Proposed sequence and timescale | Proposal separate from completion |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Use invented costs in a controlled demonstration if necessary and label them as fictional assumptions.
Can it distinguish proposals from achieved results?
The software should keep a proposed measure, its implementation record and its reporting-period estimate distinct because plans and progress updates have separate contents Regulations 34A and 34B.
Module 01 / 04
Proposed
Keep the measure and intended date.
Module 02 / 04
Implemented
Record the actual action and timing.
Module 03 / 04
Estimated
Identify the method used for the period.
Module 04 / 04
Reviewed
Retain the responsible review and evidence references.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A tick marking a purchase order approved should not automatically turn a forecast into an achieved saving.
Ask the provider to demonstrate a delayed measure and explain how the original plan remains visible.
The action-plan guide covers the reporting decision rather than the application’s task-management features.
Who still needs to review and submit?
The product brief must preserve the participant, assessor and responsible-officer roles rather than equating access permissions with statutory appointments Assessor Officers Notification.
| Software role | Useful permission | Separate responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Data contributor | Upload source records | Explain accuracy and coverage |
| Reviewer | Comment and approve a working record | Apply the relevant assessment judgement |
| Lead assessor access | Inspect evidence and reviewed outputs | Carry out the statutory review role where required |
| Officer review | View the relevant final pack | Make the applicable confirmation |
| Submission preparer | Export the reviewed information | Check what was actually submitted |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask whether the advertised service includes human review or only workflow access.
The provider should distinguish participant notification from the lead assessor’s separate approval-body notification.
How should cost and contract scope be compared?
Compare the same participant, sites, users, data condition, implementation work and export rights before deciding which quotation fits the brief.
Module 01 / 04
Licence
Clarify what records, users and features are included.
Module 02 / 04
Implementation
Specify import mapping and training deliverables.
Module 03 / 04
Professional work
Identify any assessor or consultancy service separately.
Module 04 / 04
Exit
Agree the usable files and access delivered at departure.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Give the same fictional demo script to every bidder and record unanswered questions alongside the commercial comparison.
What should be tested before signing?
Inspect a complete export and a correction workflow before treating a promise of audit-ready data as a procurement answer.
| Acceptance test | Pass evidence | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Source export | Original values and references retained | Can reviewers access the records? |
| Calculation export | Units, methods and results together | Can totals be reproduced? |
| Opportunity export | Assumptions and status retained | Is proposal separate from outcome? |
| Evidence index | Stable connections between files | Will links survive contract end? |
| Review record | Version and unresolved issues visible | Who owns the final approval? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Keep the source-data owner and calculation reviewer identifiable after the system is changed.
The data management software guide offers broader export and ownership questions.
What makes the final buying decision reviewable?
Keep a short decision record showing the required workflows, demonstrated results, unresolved gaps and contractual handover.
Module 01 / 04
Requirement
Name the actual work the organisation needs.
Module 02 / 04
Evidence
Retain the demonstration results.
Module 03 / 04
Gap
Record unsupported features or assumptions.
Module 04 / 04
Owner
Assign implementation and review responsibilities.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A product can be useful without doing every task, provided the buyer has deliberately allocated the remaining work.
Use the standards overview to keep a broader ESG platform purchase separate from the narrower ESOS brief.
How do you evaluate ESOS software?
Use this editorial nine-step sequence to make the buying decision concrete.
- 101
Define the work
List data, audit support and follow-up needs. - 202
Map the users
Identify contributors, reviewers and external access. - 303
Prepare the test
Use the same fictional records for every bidder. - 404
Run the import
Check units, periods and evidence links. - 505
Change a record
Inspect recalculation and review behaviour. - 606
Test opportunities
Export assumptions and proposed benefits. - 707
Test follow-up
Separate proposed and implemented measures. - 808
Review the contract
Confirm scope, professional services and exit rights. - 909
Accept the handover
Retain the decision record and usable exports.
Can you download an editable working resource?
This original preparation resource supports evidence and review and does not establish reporting conformity.
| Step | Review |
|---|---|
| Adapt | Set the actual reporting basis, boundary, period and selected requirements |
| Retain evidence | Connect source records and judgements to each answer |
| Review | Resolve open issues before making the final reporting claim |
Frequently asked
Questions people ask
Does ESOS software perform the assessment?
Software can support records and calculations, while the duties and review roles remain those in the regulations.
Is a carbon dashboard enough for ESOS?
The ESOS working also needs its energy population, assessment evidence and applicable reporting information rather than only emissions totals.
Can it replace a lead assessor?
A software licence does not replace an appointment required by regulation 21.
What should a demonstration include?
Use fictional records containing a missing month, a duplicate and a corrected value, then inspect the calculation and export trail.
Should action-plan tracking be included?
Include it if the organisation needs that workflow, and test that proposed measures and update estimates remain distinguishable.
How much does ESOS software cost?
Request comparable quotations covering licence, implementation, support, professional work and exit deliverables because this guide does not establish a market price.
Sources
Primary sources
Primary provisions and official owner guidance checked on 26 October 2026; historical and draft resources are labelled in the guide.
- UK ParliamentESOS regulation 21
- UK ParliamentESOS regulation 22
- UK ParliamentESOS regulation 25
- UK ParliamentESOS regulation 25C
- UK ParliamentESOS regulation 26
- UK ParliamentESOS regulation 27
- UK ParliamentESOS regulation 28
- UK ParliamentESOS regulation 29
- UK ParliamentESOS regulation 30
- UK ParliamentESOS action plans and updates
- UK ParliamentESOS Amendment Regulations 2026
- Environment AgencyHow to comply with ESOS Phase 4