What are ISO 14065 and ISO 14066? Understanding Environmental Verification Standards

Please note: This article is for educational purposes only. It does not replace the ISO and EN standards. If you work at a university, you probably already have a licence to view the complete standards. If not, please go to your relevant national provider of standards.

Please note: This article is for educational purposes only. It does not replace the ISO and EN standards. If you work at a university, you probably already have a licence to view the complete standards. If not, please go to your relevant national provider of standards.

When you’ve invested time and resources into environmental reporting, whether it’s a carbon footprint, an EPD, or a full sustainability report, you need confidence that your data stands up to scrutiny. This is where verification enters the picture. ISO 14065 and ISO 14066 set the international standards for who can verify environmental information and what competence they need to do it properly.

These standards matter because verification isn’t just a rubber stamp. Poor verification undermines the credibility of environmental claims, enables greenwashing, and ultimately damages trust in sustainability reporting. Understanding these standards helps you recognise the difference between rigorous verification and box-ticking exercises.

The Evolution from GHG to Environmental Information#

Both standards have undergone significant evolution. Originally focused solely on greenhouse gas statements, they’ve expanded to cover all types of environmental information. ISO 14065 was revised in 2020 (published as EN ISO 14065:2021), while ISO 14066 was completely rewritten in 2023.

This expansion reflects reality: verification bodies don’t just check carbon footprints anymore. They verify water footprints, circular economy metrics, biodiversity claims, and entire sustainability reports. The standards now align with ISO/IEC 17029, the overarching standard for validation and verification bodies, while adding environmental-specific requirements.

Understanding the Verification Landscape#

Before diving into the standards, it’s worth clarifying terminology that often causes confusion. Verification confirms that historical data and claims are accurate, checking what has already happened. Validation assesses whether future projections and methodologies are reasonable, evaluating what might happen. Many bodies do both, though the competence requirements differ.

Some bodies also offer “agreed-upon procedures” (AUP), where they perform specific checks without providing an opinion on the overall accuracy. This might involve verifying certain data points without assessing the entire system. While AUP has its place, it doesn’t provide the same assurance as full verification.

ISO 14065: Requirements for Verification Bodies#

ISO 14065 establishes what makes a verification body credible. It’s not enough to understand environmental science or accounting; verification bodies need robust systems to ensure consistency, impartiality, and competence across all their work.

Organisational Requirements#

The standard demands that verification bodies demonstrate genuine independence. This goes beyond avoiding obvious conflicts of interest. Verification bodies must identify, assess, and manage any threats to impartiality, whether from financial relationships, self-review, familiarity, or intimidation.

Consider a verification body that also provides consulting services. ISO 14065 requires clear separation between these functions. A body cannot verify a carbon footprint if they helped calculate it. They cannot verify an EPD if they developed the underlying LCA. These might seem obvious, but the standard goes further, examining threats from personnel relationships, financial dependencies, and even marketing partnerships.

Management System Requirements#

Verification bodies must maintain documented management systems covering everything from record-keeping to complaints handling. This isn’t bureaucracy for its own sake. When a verification fails to catch material errors, stakeholders need confidence that there’s a systematic process for understanding what went wrong and preventing recurrence.

The standard requires verification bodies to manage risks systematically. This includes both risks to impartiality and risks of reaching incorrect conclusions. Bodies must document how they assess the competence needed for different types of verification and ensure they have access to appropriate expertise.

Process Requirements#

Table 1 outlines the key process stages that ISO 14065 requires for all verification engagements.

Stage	Key Requirements	Purpose
Pre-engagement	Assess competence to perform work; evaluate risks and impartiality	Ensure capability before accepting work
Engagement	Define scope, objectives, criteria, and level of assurance	Establish clear boundaries and expectations
Planning	Develop verification plan based on risk assessment	Focus effort on material issues
Execution	Gather and evaluate evidence through appropriate techniques	Build sufficient evidence for conclusions
Review	Independent review of work before issuing statement	Catch errors and ensure consistency
Decision	Reach verification opinion based on evidence	Provide clear statement to users
Reporting	Issue verification statement and report	Communicate findings transparently

Each stage in Table 1 builds on the previous one. A verification body cannot skip steps or combine them inappropriately. For instance, the person making the final verification decision cannot be someone who conducted the verification work, ensuring an additional layer of quality control.

Levels of Assurance#

Not all verifications provide the same level of confidence. ISO 14065 recognises two levels of assurance. Reasonable assurance involves extensive testing and provides a high degree of confidence that the information is materially correct; this is what most stakeholders expect from verification. Limited assurance involves less extensive testing and only provides confidence that nothing has come to the verifier’s attention suggesting material misstatement.

The choice between reasonable and limited assurance should reflect the intended use of the information. Public environmental claims typically require reasonable assurance. Internal reporting might accept limited assurance. The problem arises when organisations seek limited assurance for public claims to reduce costs, undermining the credibility that verification should provide.

ISO 14066: Competence Requirements for Verification Teams#

While ISO 14065 focuses on organisational requirements, ISO 14066 addresses the people doing the work. A verification body might have excellent systems, but if their teams lack appropriate competence, the verification means nothing.

Team Competence Structure#

The standard recognises that verification teams need collective competence; no single person possesses all necessary skills. Table 2 shows how different competencies should be distributed across a verification team.

Competency Area	Team Leader	Team Members	Technical Expert
Environmental programme knowledge	Required	Required collectively	As needed for specific area
Technical/sector expertise	Overview understanding	Required collectively	Deep expertise in specific area
Auditing skills	Advanced	Required	Not required
Data analysis capabilities	Required	Required collectively	As relevant
Risk assessment	Required	Supporting	Advisory
Professional scepticism	Essential	Essential	Essential
Communication skills	Advanced	Adequate	Basic

As Table 2 illustrates, technical experts provide specialist knowledge but aren’t required to have auditing skills. The team leader must understand enough about the technical area to assess whether the team’s collective competence is adequate and whether conclusions are justified.

Professional Scepticism#

ISO 14066 emphasises professional scepticism: a questioning mindset that doesn’t accept information at face value. This isn’t about being deliberately difficult. It’s about recognising that people make mistakes, systems have weaknesses, and sometimes there are incentives to present information favourably.

Verification teams must challenge evidence, seek corroboration, and remain alert to information that contradicts or calls into question the reliability of documents and responses. They need to pursue inconsistencies and not simply accept management explanations without supporting evidence.

Sector-Specific Competence#

Generic auditing skills aren’t enough. Verifying a cement plant’s carbon footprint requires understanding calcination emissions. Verifying an agricultural operation’s sustainability claims requires knowledge of land use change and biogenic carbon. Verifying a chemical company’s water footprint requires understanding industrial processes and wastewater treatment.

ISO 14066 requires teams to have relevant sector knowledge, either through team members or technical experts. This goes beyond theoretical understanding; teams need familiarity with sector-specific measurement techniques, common sources of error, and typical control systems.

Maintaining Competence#

Competence isn’t static. Environmental reporting standards evolve, new methodologies emerge, and sectors develop specific requirements. ISO 14066 requires ongoing professional development and regular evaluation of competence.

Verification bodies must document how they assess competence initially and maintain it over time. This includes monitoring performance, addressing weaknesses identified through complaints or review findings, and ensuring teams stay current with relevant developments.

What This Means for Organisations Seeking Verification#

Understanding these standards helps you evaluate potential verification partners and prepare for the verification process. Here’s what to look for and what to expect.

Selecting a Verification Body#

Start by confirming accreditation. Accredited verification bodies have been independently assessed against ISO 14065. But accreditation alone isn’t enough; check that their scope covers your specific type of environmental information and sector.

Ask about their impartiality management. How do they handle conflicts of interest? What services do they provide beyond verification? Be wary of bodies that offer extensive consulting in your sector; the temptation to cross boundaries can be strong.

Investigate their sector expertise. Request evidence of relevant experience and ask about their technical experts. A body that primarily verifies manufacturing emissions might struggle with land-use emissions from agriculture. Generic expertise rarely translates into effective verification of sector-specific issues.

Preparing for Verification#

Verification isn’t something that happens to you; it requires active participation. The clearer your documentation and the better your internal systems, the more efficient the verification process.

Understand what level of assurance you need. Don’t default to limited assurance just because it’s cheaper. Consider what your stakeholders expect and what claims you intend to make. Choosing inappropriate assurance levels can backfire when stakeholders realise the limitations.

Be prepared for professional scepticism. Verifiers will challenge your data, request evidence, and pursue inconsistencies. This isn’t personal; it’s required by the standards. Organisations that view verification as collaborative rather than adversarial generally have better experiences and outcomes.

Red Flags in Verification#

Several warning signs suggest a verification body might not meet ISO 14065/14066 requirements, even if they claim to.

Verifiers who accept information without challenge aren’t demonstrating professional scepticism. If they don’t request supporting evidence, test calculations, or investigate anomalies, they’re not following the standards. Similarly, be concerned if they seem unfamiliar with your sector’s specific issues or rely entirely on generic checklists.

Watch for conflicts of interest. If the same firm that helped develop your carbon footprint offers to verify it (even through a “different department”) question their impartiality management. Real independence requires more than organisational charts.

Be wary of unrealistically quick or cheap verification offers. Proper verification takes time. While experienced verifiers work efficiently, cutting corners to reduce costs violates the standards and undermines credibility.

The Limits of Verification#

Even properly conducted verification has limitations. Verification provides assurance that information is materially correct; it doesn’t guarantee absolute accuracy. Sampling approaches mean verifiers don’t check every data point. Professional judgement means different verifiers might reach different conclusions about marginal issues.

Verification also doesn’t assess the ambition or adequacy of environmental performance. A company might have an accurately verified carbon footprint while making no meaningful reduction efforts. Verification confirms the numbers are right, not that they’re good enough.

These limitations don’t invalidate verification, but stakeholders need to understand what verification does and doesn’t provide. Organisations shouldn’t hide behind verification certificates when questioned about environmental performance, and stakeholders shouldn’t assume verification equals environmental leadership.

The Future of Environmental Verification#

The standards continue evolving. Current discussions involve strengthening requirements for supply chain verification, addressing biodiversity and nature-related claims, and ensuring verification keeps pace with emerging sustainability frameworks.

Digital reporting and automated data collection pose new challenges. How do you verify data from IoT sensors or blockchain systems? How do you assess the competence needed for algorithm-based claims? ISO 14065 and 14066 will need updates to address these technological shifts.

The expansion of mandatory environmental reporting also affects verification. As regulations like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) require verified sustainability information, demand for competent verification bodies will increase dramatically. Understanding these standards helps organisations prepare for this transition.

Conclusion: Verification That Adds Value#

ISO 14065 and ISO 14066 establish the foundation for credible environmental verification. They ensure verification bodies have robust systems and competent teams, providing stakeholders with confidence in environmental information.

For organisations seeking verification, understanding these standards helps select appropriate partners and prepare effectively. Look beyond marketing claims to assess genuine competence and independence. Prepare for rigorous scrutiny rather than expecting rubber stamps.

Verification done properly adds value beyond compliance. It identifies weaknesses in data systems, highlights improvement opportunities, and builds stakeholder trust. But this only happens when verification bodies truly meet ISO 14065/14066 requirements rather than merely claiming to.

As environmental claims face increasing scrutiny, the difference between robust verification and box-ticking becomes more apparent. These standards provide the framework for verification that genuinely enhances the credibility of environmental information. Understanding them is essential for anyone serious about environmental transparency.