Ga naar de kern van de disclosure
Gratis · Community-leden
＋ Nog 6 tonen− Minder tonen
＋ Nog 5 tonen− Minder tonen
Echte gepubliceerde rapporten
Rapport openen →
Rapport openen →
Rapport openen →
✓ LRA AI-assistent · Met menselijke controle
Officiële bron openen →
Explore the California course →
California SB 253: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act·Disclosure SB253-ASSURANCE
Third-party assurance
Praktische leidraad voor het opstellen van deze disclosure. Gebruik deze kaart om te bepalen welke informatie u voorbereidt, om beweringen te toetsen en om onderbouwend bewijs te ordenen. Raadpleeg voor de exacte vereisten altijd de officiële CARB-bron.
Gepubliceerd paspoort
Review in behandeling
···
In review
Redactionele review loopt
Opgesteld op basis van officiële bronmaterialen en bewijs uit gepubliceerde rapporten. Er is nog geen goedkeurder vastgelegd, dus deze pagina heeft geen auteursvermelding.
Gebruik deze naast de officiële CARB-bron zolang die review loopt.
Standaard
California SB 253: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act
Disclosure SB253-ASSURANCE · 2026-initial-regulation-as-amended-sb219
Laatst beoordeeld
—
Educatief materiaal van LRA · Niet uitgegeven of goedgekeurd door CARB
Voor deze disclosure
Kern van de disclosure
This disclosure is about whether the organisation has had its greenhouse gas reporting checked by an independent third party, and what that review covered. In practice, the organisation should explain the assurance arrangement in a way that makes clear which emissions information was reviewed, how far through the business the review reached, and whether the check was limited to selected parts of the inventory or applied more broadly.
The practical focus is on coverage and credibility, not just the fact that assurance exists. A useful explanation should help a reader understand whether the assurance covered the organisation’s full operations or only certain entities, sites, or emissions scopes, and whether the review was designed to support confidence in the reported figures as a whole or only in a narrower subset.
Dit educatieve materiaal van LRA ondersteunt het opstellen van de disclosure. Raadpleeg voor de exacte vereisten altijd de officiële CARB-bron.
Voordat u begint
Voordat u begint
Een korte checklist voordat u deze disclosure opstelt — vink elk punt af zodra het geregeld is.
Voorbereiding
Belangrijkste voor te bereiden informatie
| Voorbereidingsveld | Wat vast te leggen | Aanwijzing voor bewijs | Eigenaar |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 and 2 coverage | State the assurance level applied to the emissions figures for direct emissions and purchased-energy emissions. | Assurance statement or report, plus the final emissions schedule showing which scopes were covered. | Sustainability reporting / Finance |
| Assurance caveats | Capture any stated limits, exceptions, or reservations attached to the assurance work. | Assurance report wording, including any qualifications, exclusions, or scope restrictions. | Sustainability reporting / Legal |
| Assurance conclusion | Record the provider’s overall conclusion on the assured information, using the exact outcome they reached. | Signed assurance opinion or conclusion section from the provider’s report. | Sustainability reporting / Finance |
| Assurance provider | Identify the external party that carried out the assurance work and issued the statement. | Engagement letter, provider letterhead, or signed assurance report naming the firm or practitioner. | Procurement / Sustainability reporting |
| Scope 3 assurance status | Show whether the value-chain emissions information was assured, and if so, the status or extent of that assurance. | Assurance report and the Scope 3 inventory or disclosure table showing the assured portion. | Sustainability reporting / Supply chain |
| Assurance method standard | Name the assurance framework or method the provider used for the engagement. | Assurance report, engagement terms, or provider methodology statement naming the standard applied. | Sustainability reporting / Finance |
＋ Subelementen van SB253-ASSURANCE tonen (LRA-werkchecklist)
State the assurance level applied to Scope 1 and Scope 2 data.
Set out any limits, caveats, or exceptions attached to the assurance work.
Provide the assurance provider’s overall conclusion or opinion.
Name the assurance framework or method that was used.
Identify the external, independent party that carried out the assurance.
Explain whether Scope 3 information has been assured, and if so, to what extent.
Hoe u dit voorbereidt
Start by pinning down what the assurance covers: identify the emissions areas, the level of assurance, and whether any separate treatment applies to Scope 3. Keep the scope statement aligned to the item you will report.
Confirm who carried out the work and what method they used. Record the external assurance provider and the assurance framework or approach named in the report, using the same source documents throughout.
Gather the supporting material behind the assurance result. This should include the evidence the provider relied on, plus the underlying records needed to support the stated level, status, and conclusion.
Prepare the disclosure text itself in clear business language. Set out the assurance level for Scope 1 and Scope 2, the conclusion reached, and any note on Scope 3 status, making sure each item matches the source evidence.
Add any caveats or boundaries that affect how the assurance should be read. If the provider set limits, exceptions, or qualifications, describe them plainly and keep them tied to the relevant part of the assurance statement.
Before finalising, check the disclosure against the official source and the provider’s report. Make sure the wording, figures, and narrative are consistent, and that nothing material has been omitted or changed in translation.
De gegevens opvragen
Request the assurance pack from Finance
Vertaal de disclosure naar een interne bedrijfsvraag — en pas die daarna aan op het taalgebruik van uw organisatie.
What third-party assurance evidence do we have for our Scope 1, Scope 2, and any Scope 3 emissions reporting, and who provided it?
Use your organisation’s own labels first, then map them to the reporting fields. For example, ask for the assurance letter, review note, or external verification pack in the terms your team already uses, rather than using framework wording in the request.
Zwak verzoek
Please provide the third-party assurance evidence for the disclosure.
Waarom dit misgaat: This is too framework-led and vague. It does not tell the owner which reporting period, which emissions areas, which document type, or which caveats matter, so the response may be incomplete or hard to use.
Beter verzoek
Please send the signed external assurance or verification document for [reporting period] covering our emissions reporting, plus the provider name, what parts of the inventory it covers, the conclusion, and any limitations or qualifications. Use your team’s usual document names and include the file link.
Sjabloon voor een formele e-mail
Subject: Request for assurance evidence for emissions reporting Hi [name], We are preparing the disclosure pack for [reporting period]. Please send the latest external assurance or verification evidence covering our emissions reporting, including: - the provider name; - the emissions areas covered; - the assurance statement or report; - any limitations, qualifications, or exceptions noted by the provider; and - the basis used in the provider’s conclusion. Please also confirm the file location and the internal contact who can answer follow-up questions. If there are multiple documents, please send the final signed version and any supporting notes we should keep on file. Please adapt this to your organisation’s own terms and check the source material before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Korte versie voor Teams / Slack
Hi [name] — could you send the latest external assurance/verification pack for [reporting period] for our emissions reporting? Please include the provider name, what it covers, any caveats, the conclusion, and the file link. Please use your team’s usual document names and check the source material before sign-off. Thanks.
Sectorvoorbeelden
Manufacturing
Context. A plant-based group has external review of its emissions inventory prepared by a specialist verifier.
Aangepast verzoek. Please send the latest verification report for [reporting period] covering plant fuel use, purchased electricity, and any other emissions areas reviewed, plus the verifier name, conclusion, and any limitations noted. Use the document name your team uses internally.
Voorbeeldantwoord. Verification report dated [date], verifier [name], covers Scope 1 and Scope 2 for all sites in the group, conclusion states [summary], with one limitation noted for [site]. File stored at [link].
Retail / Consumer Goods
Context. A multi-site business has assurance over group emissions data prepared through the sustainability reporting team.
Aangepast verzoek. Please share the external assurance pack for [reporting period] for the group emissions file, including the assurance statement, the provider, whether Scope 3 was included, and any exceptions or caveats. Please use the same file names your team already uses.
Voorbeeldantwoord. Assurance statement from [provider], dated [date], covers Scope 1 and Scope 2 and selected Scope 3 categories, conclusion [summary], with no material exceptions noted. Supporting files saved in [location].
Stel uw disclosure op
Notities die gegevens tot een disclosure maken
LRA-trainingssjablonen — pas ze aan op uw organisatie en controleer de officiële bron vóór goedkeuring.
Methodenotitie
State which emissions areas were reviewed, who carried out the external check, what assurance framework they used, and whether any limits or qualifications were attached to the review.
Contextnotitie
Explain what the assurance result means for readers by clarifying the level of confidence reached for the reported emissions data and whether Scope 3 was included or left outside the review.
Toelichting op schommelingen
If the assurance outcome changed from the prior period, note whether the shift reflects a different review scope, a change in the external reviewer or framework, or the removal or addition of any qualifications.
Vermelding in de inhoudsindex
SB253-ASSURANCE Third-party assurance — [location / page] / [notes]Downloadcentrum
Hulpmiddelen en formulieren voor de voorbereiding
Professionele voorbereidingshulpmiddelen voor SB253-ASSURANCE — gratis met een LRA Community-lidmaatschap. Registreer u eenmalig (gratis) en alle downloads komen vrij, samen met de Disclosure-bibliotheek, de sjablonen en de LRA AI-assistent.
01XLSWerkboek voorbereiding & assuranceDatapunten, risico’s, te controleren bewijs, eigenaar en bewijsdossier.Gratis downloaden ↧
02XLSPakket voor de gegevensaanvraagAanvraagmail, berichtsjabloon, antwoordvelden en goedkeuringsstructuur.Gratis downloaden ↧
03PDFBibliotheekkaartPrintbare samenvatting van één pagina van deze disclosure-kaart.Gratis downloaden ↧
Assurance-gereedheid
Controleer bij elke bewering het bewijs
| Bewering | Risico | Te controleren bewijs |
|---|---|---|
| We obtained the public assurance pack for the emissions figures, and it names the external reviewer. | The assurer checks whether the published pack is complete and whether the named reviewer can be matched to the engagement. | Published assurance report; cover page or signature page showing the reviewer’s name; final public filing set. |
| For the year in question, we had the external review carried out at the required level for the first two emissions scopes. | The assurer probes whether the engagement level actually matches the level expected for that reporting year, rather than a lower or different form of review. | Engagement letter; assurance report wording on level applied; internal reporting calendar or compliance checklist for the year. |
| Where the review noted any caveats, we kept those points visible in the published material rather than summarising them away. | The assurer checks whether any restrictions, exceptions, or caveats were fully carried through into the disclosure. | Assurance report; redline of the public disclosure; management response or issue log showing how caveats were handled. |
| The assurance report we published includes the reviewer’s overall view and makes clear whether there were any caveats or not. | The assurer probes whether the report states a conclusion and whether the presence or absence of caveats is unambiguous. | Final assurance report; publication pack; sign-off memo confirming the report version released to the public. |
| We used an outside reviewer, not an in-house team, for the assurance work. | The assurer checks whether the reviewer was genuinely external to the reporting entity and its connected entities. | Provider contract; independence declaration; corporate relationship checks; conflict-of-interest records. |
| Before appointing the reviewer, we checked that they had relevant emissions-assurance experience and the capability to complete the work properly. | The assurer probes whether the reviewer had the right competence, capacity, and practical ability for the engagement. | Provider credentials; CVs or team biographies; proposal or tender documents; competence assessment notes. |
Voor te bereiden bewijsdossier
Veelvoorkomende hiaten in de rapportage
The information is presented without a date or as-at point.
The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.
Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.
Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.
Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Veelvoorkomende hiaten
Fouten om te vermijden bij het verzamelen van gegevens
Wrong owner askedThe team chases the sustainability lead for assurance evidence when the audit, finance, or external provider team actually holds the working papers and sign-off trail.
Framework labels used too earlyPeople ask for the data in disclosure language instead of the organisation’s own process terms, so the source team cannot map the request to its normal records.
Scope not pinned downThe collector never states whether the check covers only Scope 1 and Scope 2 or also the Scope 3 status field, so different teams send different slices of data.
Wrong reporting periodEvidence is pulled from a different cut-off date or reporting window than the one used for the disclosure pack, which makes the assurance record inconsistent with the rest of the filing.
Counting basis mixed upOne source gives a status flag while another gives a narrative note, and the collector merges them without keeping the same basis for each field.
Source labels stripped outThe original file names, system tags, or document titles are lost during consolidation, so the reviewer cannot trace each item back to its first record.
Separate populations mergedAssurance details for different entities, sites, or reporting streams are combined into one file even though they should stay separate for review.
Evidence metadata missingThe pack arrives without the provider name, date, version, or other trace details, leaving no way to show where the assurance information came from.
No sign-off trail keptThe final dataset is circulated without a clear approval record, so nobody can show who checked the assurance level, limitations, opinion, standard used, or provider details before submission.
Waar vaak een professionele afweging nodig is
What counts as the covered emissions set after a buy-in or saleIf the reporting boundary changed during the year, explain which sites, entities and activity data were included in the assurance work and how you dealt with any opening or closing-period changes.
Using different country methods for the same activityWhere local data systems or calculation methods differ across countries, state which approach was used for each location and why the final assurance view still gives a like-for-like picture.
Borderline cases for people, assets or operations near the boundaryFor items close to the inclusion line, set out the rule you used to include or leave them out and disclose any material judgement made by management or the assurer.
Choosing the cut-off date and data basisIf the assurance work uses a different timing basis, reporting date or data cut-off from the underlying operational records, explain the basis chosen and any effect on comparability.
Measured figures versus estimates or proxiesWhen direct measurement was not available, disclose where estimates, models or proxy data were used, why they were needed, and whether the assurer treated them differently from measured figures.
Rounding and presentation of the final numbersState the rounding rule used for the assured figures and make sure the published totals still reconcile to the underlying unrounded data within the chosen presentation approach.
Protecting sensitive data by grouping or maskingIf privacy or confidentiality means some detail is combined or hidden, explain what was aggregated, the level of grouping used, and any impact on the assurance conclusion.
Different assurance coverage for direct and value-chain emissionsWhere the assurance work covers direct emissions but not the wider value chain, make clear the split, the reason for any partial coverage, and how that limitation is described in the conclusion.
Voorbeelden
Illustratieve voorbeelden
Synthetisch, geschreven door LRA — niet afkomstig uit een bedrijfsrapport en geen tekst uit een standaard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — manufacturing
We have included this synthetic example to show how our group might describe external review of its climate data. For the year ended 31 December 2025, an independent assurance firm reviewed our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions at a limited level of assurance, using ISAE 3000 (Revised) together with ISAE 3410; the conclusion was that nothing came to the reviewer’s attention to suggest the figures were materially misstated. Scope 3 was not covered in the same review, and the report noted a few boundaries and estimation points that narrowed the work performed.
Illustrative only: this example shows how a reporter can explain who performed the review, what level of confidence was reached for direct and purchased-energy emissions, which framework was used, whether indirect value-chain emissions were included, and any caveats on scope or methods.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — transport and logistics
This synthetic example shows one way we might report our external check of emissions information. For 2025, an independent third party provided reasonable assurance over our Scope 1 and Scope 2 figures under ISAE 3000 (Revised), and the conclusion was positive with no material issues identified; however, the reviewer set out a few qualifications linked to data gaps at two sites and excluded Scope 3 from the engagement.
Illustrative only: this example demonstrates a different sector voice while still covering the reviewer, the confidence level for direct and purchased-energy emissions, the assurance framework, the outcome, the limits noted, and the fact that value-chain emissions were outside the review.
Bedrijfsrapporten
Hoe bedrijven SB253-ASSURANCE in de praktijk rapporteren
Voorbeelden van volledige en gedeeltelijke rapportagepraktijk. Dit zijn op bewijs gebaseerde analyses, geen sjablonen om over te nemen.
Cargill
Food Production — Agricultural · United States · 2025
Cargill’s 2025 Impact Report provides assurance specifically for Fiscal Year 2025 Scope 1 and Scope 2 market-based and location-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as stated on page 109. The assurance provider is identified as KPMG N.V., offering limited assurance on selected sustainability KPIs, though the report only partially details this on page 75. Notably, the report lacks a clear assurance opinion or conclusion, does not provide assurance status for Scope 3 emissions, and does not specify the assurance standard used, leaving these aspects unclear or missing.
Old Dominion Freight Line / ODFL
Ground Transportation — Trucking · United States · 2024
Old Dominion Freight Line’s 2024 Sustainability Report includes assurance on its scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions reporting, as noted on page 6, with reference to a 2024 GHG Inventory Verification Opinion mentioned on page 23. The report also references alignment with the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard on page 19, though the assurance standard is not clearly disclosed. Notably, the report does not provide information on assurance limitations, the assurance provider, assurance opinion or conclusion, or the status of scope 3 emissions assurance.
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
Real Estate · United States · 2025
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.'s 2025 Corporate Responsibility Report includes verified data on Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, with Scope 3 emissions specifically verified by AET, as noted on page 54. The report references assurance of its GHG emissions and environmental inventory data for the calendar year 2024, with related assurance statements found on pages 54-55 and 62. However, the report does not provide clear information on the assurance level, limitations, opinion, provider, or the specific assurance standard used, as these datapoints are either not found or unclear.
Vraag de Study Studio AI-assistent naar deze disclosure
Krijg praktische antwoorden voor uw rapportagecontext. Uw eerste twee antwoorden zijn gratis — word gratis lid van LRA Community om zonder limiet door te gaan.
Probeer
Hoe bereid ik SB253-ASSURANCE voor?
Welke gegevens moet ik verzamelen?
Waar kan ik een voorbeeld uit een echt rapport zien?
Welke fouten moet ik vermijden?
2 gratis antwoorden
Toets uw begrip
Scenario’s om door te werken
A reporting team has a signed assurance report for its Scope 1 and Scope 2 figures. The report names the external reviewer, states the level of review reached, and includes a conclusion, but the team is unsure whether to mention that the reviewer also noted a scope restriction on one site visit.
VWhat should the preparer decide to include when summarising the external review for this disclosure?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
The summary should cover the outside reviewer’s identity, the level reached for Scope 1 and Scope 2, the conclusion, the method or framework used, and any limits or caveats attached to the work. If the report contains a restriction, that limitation should be carried through rather than omitted.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · Capture the reviewer, the level reached, the conclusion, the method used, and any caveats together so the picture is complete.
An organisation has obtained external review for its direct emissions and purchased electricity data, but its Scope 3 work is still being checked internally and no outside review has started. The draft narrative currently says only that the wider value-chain figures are “under review”.
VHow should the preparer describe the position on Scope 3 assurance?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
The disclosure should make the status of Scope 3 external review clear in plain language, so readers can tell whether it has not started, is in progress, or has been completed. A vague phrase like “under review” is not enough if it does not clearly show the current assurance position.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · State the current assurance status for Scope 3 plainly, so users can see where the process stands.
A company engaged a specialist firm to review its emissions data, but the draft note does not say whether that firm was independent. The preparer argues that the firm’s name and report title are enough because the reviewer is well known in the market.
VWhat judgement should the preparer make about identifying the assurance provider?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
The disclosure should identify the outside reviewer in a way that shows it was an independent third party, not just a generic service provider. Naming the firm alone may not be enough if the reader cannot tell from the disclosure that the reviewer was external and independent.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · Make it clear that the review came from an outside, independent provider.
The assurance report says the emissions data were reviewed using a recognised assurance framework and gives a conclusion with a qualification about one data source. The sustainability team wants to shorten the disclosure by leaving out the framework name and the qualification because the conclusion is already “limited assurance”.
VWhat should the preparer do with the framework used and the qualification?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
Both pieces of information should stay in the disclosure: the framework or approach used for the review, and any qualification or limitation that affects the conclusion. The conclusion alone does not replace those details, because readers need to understand both the basis of the work and any constraints on it.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · Do not rely on the conclusion alone; keep the review basis and any limitations visible.
Verwijzingen naar het raamwerk
Relevante California-vereisten en verwante disclosures
Beschikbare verwijzingen naar het raamwerk en aanpalende disclosures die relevant zijn voor deze vereiste.
California
SB253-ASSURANCE
binnen California SB 253: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act
Gerelateerd & verkennen
Reporting entity applicability →GHG Protocol methodology and reporting basis → KaartPublic disclosure, reporting organization, and fees →Reporting timeline and filing status → KaartScope 1 greenhouse gas emissions → Kaart
Alle disclosures bekijken →
Meer in California SB 253 → Volledige catalogus bekijken → Home van de Disclosure-bibliotheek → Zoeken in alle disclosures →
FAQ
Vragen die deze pagina beantwoordt
SB253-ASSURANCE: what should I gather before I start the disclosure draft and how do I use the page’s step-by-step preparation section?+−
Start with the page’s plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section to collect the listed datapoints: Scope 1 and 2 coverage, assurance caveats, assurance conclusion, assurance provider, Scope 3 assurance status and the assurance method standard. The page is designed to help you turn that into a draft, not to replace your own internal process.
SB253-ASSURANCE: which data points does this page say I need to prepare for the disclosure?+−
The page highlights six datapoints to prepare: Scope 1 and 2 coverage, assurance caveats, assurance conclusion, assurance provider, Scope 3 assurance status and the assurance method standard. Use those as the starting checklist for your draft and evidence pack.
SB253-ASSURANCE: how do I decide who owns the data for this disclosure across sustainability, HR, finance or operations?+−
The page does not assign roles for you, but it is set up for practitioner use, so you can use the step-by-step section and workbook to map each datapoint to a named owner. A practical approach is to assign ownership for each item in the evidence pack and for each assurance claim you need to verify.
SB253-ASSURANCE: what evidence pack do I need to make this assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness. Use it alongside the six assurance claims to verify so you can show where each claim comes from and what supports it.
SB253-ASSURANCE: what are the six assurance claims to verify and how should I use them?+−
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence angle. Use them as a review checklist to test whether your draft disclosure is supported and whether any caveats or gaps need to be explained.
SB253-ASSURANCE: what common reporting gaps or mistakes does the page warn about?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can check your draft before it goes to review. Use that section to spot missing coverage, unclear assurance wording or weak evidence before you finalise the disclosure.
SB253-ASSURANCE: how do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook and printable Library Card?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise the datapoints, evidence and ownership, and use the Library Card as a quick reference while drafting or reviewing.
SB253-ASSURANCE: does the page include an example disclosure I can copy into my draft?+−
Yes, the page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table. Treat them as examples of structure and presentation only, and make sure any figures in your own draft are internally consistent.
SB253-ASSURANCE: how can I turn the page content into a draft disclosure and content-index line?+−
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line to help you shape the final text. Use those prompts to turn your prepared data and evidence into a clear draft for internal review.
SB253-ASSURANCE: can I reuse data from this page for ESRS E1 (Climate Change)?+−
The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across both. It does not say the requirements are identical, so you should still check the other framework separately.
Meer vragen waarbij deze pagina helpt
SB253-ASSURANCE workbook: what should I fill in first for SB253-ASSURANCE?SB253-ASSURANCE evidence pack: how do I build assurance support from the five items on the page?SB253-ASSURANCE step-by-step preparation: what order should I follow?SB253-ASSURANCE common mistakes: what should I check before sending the draft for review?SB253-ASSURANCE assurance claims: how do I test claim, risk and evidence?SB253-ASSURANCE draft output: how do I use the narrative starters and content-index line?SB253-ASSURANCE illustrative example: how should I use the synthetic table without copying it?SB253-ASSURANCE data owner: who should own Scope 1 and 2 coverage, caveats and assurance conclusion?SB253-ASSURANCE Scope 3 assurance status: what should I capture in the draft?SB253-ASSURANCE assurance provider: what information does the page say to include?SB253-ASSURANCE assurance method standard: how should I record it in the disclosure?SB253-ASSURANCE ESRS E1: how can I reuse the same climate data across frameworks?
Verder verdiepen · SB253-ASSURANCE
Leer deze disclosure van begin tot eind op te stellen
This guide covers one statutory requirement. The California Climate Regulation course walks SB 253 and SB 261 end to end — applicability, GHG inventories, climate-risk reporting and assurance — with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
Hoe deze bibliotheek is opgebouwd
312 gepubliceerde rapporten geïndexeerd
63.171 pagina’s met verwijzingen op paginaniveau
272 door practitioners gemaakte Disclosurekaarten
/nl/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/sb253-assurance/
Gratis · LRA Community
Ontvang uw SB253-ASSURANCE-hulpmiddelen — gratis
Uw voorbereidingshulpmiddelen zijn gratis voor leden van LRA Community en voor studenten. Registreer u eenmalig (gratis) en uw download start meteen — plus de Disclosure-bibliotheek, sjablonen en de LRA AI-assistent.
✓
Gelukt — uw download begint
Uw bestand wordt nu gedownload. Ook uw Community-Cabinet — met de Disclosure-bibliotheek, sjablonen en de LRA AI-assistent — staat klaar.
Open uw Cabinet →