Standards and reporting
Financed Emissions Software
Financed emissions software should help reviewers reconstruct how an exposure became an attributed result, including the method, counterparty match and source evidence.
What job should financed emissions software perform?
Procure the ability to preserve a method-specific calculation and review trail, rather than only a portfolio total or a claim of framework alignment.
Module 01 / 04
Population
Reconcile the imported holdings and lending records.
Module 02 / 04
Method
Identify the part, edition and asset-class calculation.
Module 03 / 04
Evidence
Retain input values, source dates and provenance.
Module 04 / 04
Review
Show unresolved exceptions and reviewer decisions.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
PCAF Part A methods depend on asset class and financing characteristics, making classification and input provenance substantive buying questions PCAF Part A Chapter 5.
The financed-emissions guide explains those method decisions, while the standards overview keeps calculation and reporting obligations distinct.
What should the procurement brief define?
An editorial brief turns a generic product demonstration into a test of the institution’s actual evidence problems.
| Brief item | Information to specify |
|---|---|
| Instruments | Actual assets, loans and financing structures to test |
| Reporting purpose | Inventory, issuer report or another defined information output |
| Method coverage | Relevant PCAF parts, editions and asset-class methods |
| Acceptance evidence | Files, decisions and exports the buyer must be able to inspect |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
PCAF’s standards page identifies separate current parts and editions, so a generic “PCAF supported” statement needs a precise method and version explanation PCAF standards and editions.
Which original demonstration could expose a weak implementation?
Fictional buyer Elmscott Investment Partners supplies an intentionally awkward dataset rather than accepting a demonstration using only perfectly matched holdings.
Module 01 / 04
Names
Two similarly named counterparties with different legal entities.
Module 02 / 04
Instruments
A private-company loan alongside a listed equity holding.
Module 03 / 04
Vintages
Counterparty emissions and exposure dates that differ.
Module 04 / 04
Changes
A corrected source and a disputed reviewer decision.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The buyer asks the demonstrator to show the source inputs behind one result, correct a false match and identify every output affected by that correction.
Use the sustainability software RFP guide to integrate the demonstration into a wider procurement process.
Can the software explain the chosen denominator?
Elmscott’s fictional method test challenges a platform that applies one familiar corporate-finance value to every instrument.
| Test record | Demonstration request |
|---|---|
| Private-company business loan | Show the equity-plus-debt source and selected method |
| Listed-company exposure | Show the applicable EVIC input and provenance |
| Known-use-of-proceeds financing | Show how the financing characteristics affect classification |
| Misclassified instrument | Correct the class and compare the changed calculation |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
PCAF’s private-company and listed-company business-loan denominator distinction is explicit, so a platform should make its actual selection inspectable PCAF Part A section 5.2.
How should import controls handle duplicates and missing exposure?
Require an explainable reconciliation between the source population and the calculated population before interpreting a polished dashboard as complete.
Module 01 / 04
Duplicates
Retain the reason for merging or rejecting repeated records.
Module 02 / 04
Exclusions
Keep omitted instruments and the decision basis visible.
Module 03 / 04
Unmatched
Separate unresolved counterparties from accepted estimates.
Module 04 / 04
Totals
Compare source balances with the included calculation population.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Elmscott’s source file contains two records for the same exposure because a custodian update retained an earlier line identifier.
UK SRS S2 asset-management disclosures include the AUM represented and explanations of exclusions, which makes a recoverable population decision useful UK SRS S2 paragraph B61.
Which evidence fields should survive an export?
These editorial fields make a single calculated record understandable outside the vendor interface.
| Record group | Example evidence |
|---|---|
| Identity | Instrument, counterparty identifier and mapping decision |
| Method | PCAF part, edition, asset class and calculation reference |
| Inputs | Exposure, denominator, emissions scope, periods and sources |
| Review | Exception, decision, reviewer and calculation version |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The GHG Protocol investment chapter distinguishes investment activities, so a record should retain enough purpose and ownership context to avoid treating every investment-related activity identically GHG Protocol Chapter 15.
Can the product explain quality without inventing one universal score?
Ask for the method-specific hierarchy, input evidence and aggregation basis behind a score, not a proprietary badge presented as proof of inventory reliability PCAF Part A data-quality provisions.
Module 01 / 04
Hierarchy
Identify the applicable asset-class scoring logic.
Module 02 / 04
Scope
Keep counterparty Scope 3 quality distinguishable.
Module 03 / 04
Weighting
Show which outstanding amounts enter the summary.
Module 04 / 04
Limitations
Explain the evidence gaps the score does not resolve.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
PCAF recommends an outstanding-amount-weighted quality score or an explanation of inability and separately requires the weighted Scope 3 score where those emissions are reported PCAF Part A section 6, page 167.
The joint PCAF/CDP paper treats lower-quality starting estimates as an improvement task, not a reason to disguise limitations PCAF/CDP data-quality paper.
Can different emissions associations remain separate?
Elmscott adds an underwriting-related record and a facilitation record to test whether the implementation distinguishes methods rather than forcing everything into the financed-emissions total.
| Test | What should remain distinguishable |
|---|---|
| Financed exposure | Part A method and attributed result |
| Facilitation activity | Part B purpose and its separate method treatment |
| Insurance underwriting | Part C insurance-associated emissions calculation |
| Insurer investment holding | Financed investment activity rather than underwriting risk |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
PCAF Part B and Part C address different associations, while UK SRS S2’s insurance financed-emissions paragraphs concern loans and investments PCAF Part B executive summary PCAF Part C scope UK SRS S2 paragraph B63.
What should happen when a source is replaced mid-review?
Preserve the old input, new input and reason for change so reviewers can distinguish a changed estimate from a changed financing population.
Module 01 / 04
Original
Retain the source version previously used.
Module 02 / 04
Replacement
Identify new coverage, period and assumptions.
Module 03 / 04
Comparison
Show calculation and downstream disclosure changes.
Module 04 / 04
Decision
Record why the new input was accepted or rejected.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
UK SRS S2 requires faithful measurement choices and information about changes to approaches, inputs and assumptions UK SRS S2 paragraphs B38–B40 and 29(a)(iii).
The UK financial-services guide explains why separate issuer and product outputs need their own population decisions.
How should standard changes be demonstrated?
Test a known version distinction rather than relying on a promise that the product is always current.
| Version question | Evidence to request |
|---|---|
| IFRS or UK text? | Show the actual reporting basis applied to the record |
| Targeted amendments | Identify the Category 15 limitation and disclosure treatment used |
| UK period alignment | Keep B59A reasons, method and improvement timeline separate |
| Historical calculation | Reproduce an earlier output under its recorded method version |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The December 2025 IFRS S2 amendments and UK SRS S2 share Category 15 provisions, but the UK text includes its own period-alignment disclosure in B59A IFRS S2 paragraphs 29A–29C UK SRS S2 paragraphs 29A–29C and B59A.
Can a controlled calculation settle the reporting judgement?
Software can preserve the analysis without deciding financial materiality, an issuer explanation or the wording of an unreserved compliance statement UK SRS S1 paragraphs 17–19 and 72–73B.
Module 01 / 04
Output
Identify the publication or recipient needing information.
Module 02 / 04
Judgement
Retain management’s disclosure assessment.
Module 03 / 04
Limitation
Expose uncertainty and unresolved coverage.
Module 04 / 04
Claim
Check the statement against the work completed.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The FCA issuer route is comply or explain across UK SRS, so an incomplete calculation should not trigger an automated claim that every institution is breaching a universal disclosure duty PS26/19 paragraphs 1.2 and 3.6.
The UK SRS gap analysis guide helps translate an unresolved issue into the actual preparation or disclosure decision.
What can an assurance-ready export actually demonstrate?
An export can help a practitioner inspect information, but it does not itself constitute an independent conclusion.
| Evidence test | Limit of the claim |
|---|---|
| Sources reproducible | Does not prove every source is correct |
| Approvals recorded | Does not establish independent assurance |
| PCAF method referenced | Does not prove all method provisions were followed |
| Final version exported | Does not extend a practitioner’s conclusion to later changes |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
ISSA (UK) 5000 identifies engagement information, period, criteria and level, so procurement language should distinguish evidence preparation from the independent engagement ISSA (UK) 5000 paragraphs 75–80 and 190.
What should the buyer accept before contracting?
Accept demonstrated capabilities against the agreed records and unresolved issues rather than a broad claim that the product makes the institution compliant.
Module 01 / 04
Demonstration
Keep the actual dataset, questions and observed results.
Module 02 / 04
Exceptions
Record unsupported methods and workarounds.
Module 03 / 04
Export
Inspect files without relying on the vendor dashboard.
Module 04 / 04
Handover
Agree ownership of methods, data and review decisions.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The sustainability software hub supports the broader platform comparison and UK SRS consultancy guide helps specify specialist method work.
How can the buyer run an evidence-led demonstration?
This editorial procurement workflow tests preparation capabilities without prescribing software architecture.
- 101
Define the output
Identify the intended reporting or information task. - 202
Choose difficult records
Include mismatches, duplicates and contrasting instruments. - 303
Freeze the source set
Retain the exact files supplied for the demonstration. - 404
Inspect classification
Ask why each method and denominator was chosen. - 505
Trace the calculation
Follow one exposure through inputs to attributed emissions. - 606
Challenge the sources
Replace a vintage and inspect changed results. - 707
Review quality
Check scope-specific evidence and weighting logic. - 808
Export the record
Inspect methods, decisions and exceptions outside the interface. - 909
Accept with limitations
Record demonstrated capability and unresolved preparation work.
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
What is financed emissions software?
It supports portfolio data, attribution methods and reporting evidence, while the method and disclosure decisions remain identifiable.
Does PCAF support mean every asset is covered?
Ask which parts, editions and asset-class methods are implemented rather than relying on a generic alignment claim.
Should the software use one denominator?
No, the PCAF attribution basis varies by method and counterparty characteristics.
Does a portfolio quality score verify the inventory?
No, inspect the applicable hierarchy, weighting and underlying evidence separately from independent assurance.
Can UK and IFRS calculations share data?
They may share inputs, but retain the actual reporting basis and UK-specific B59A period-alignment disclosure decision.
Does this guide recommend a provider?
It sets editorial demonstration criteria rather than making vendor capability or ranking claims, and the method references identify the source basis.
Sources
Primary sources
Primary provisions and official owner guidance checked on 26 October 2026; historical and draft resources are labelled in the guide.
- PCAFThe Global GHG Accounting and Reporting Standard: current editions
- PCAFFinanced Emissions, Part A, Third Edition, December 2025
- PCAFFacilitated Emissions, Part B executive summary, December 2023
- PCAFInsurance-Associated Emissions, Part C, Second Edition, December 2025
- PCAF and CDPThe importance of data quality in the journey toward decarbonization, June 2023
- GHG ProtocolScope 3 Calculation Guidance, Chapter 15: Investments
- IFRS FoundationIFRS S2, issued December 2025 text
- Department for Business and TradeUK SRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures
- Department for Business and TradeUK SRS S1: General Requirements
- Financial Conduct AuthorityPS26/19: final rules and made instrument
- Financial Reporting CouncilISSA (UK) 5000, November 2025
Continue reading
Read next
Financed emissions
Understand PCAF attribution and reporting decisions.
Sustainability software RFP
Specify a wider evidence-led procurement.
UK SRS for financial services
Separate entity, activity and product outputs.
Sustainability software
Review the broad reporting workflow.
UK SRS consultants
Specify method and preparation support.