Outputs and frameworks
What comes out of it.
Six documents and two shared workspaces, each drawn from a closed period, each traceable back to the evidence it rests on.
Six documents and two workspaces, each written for a specific reader.
| Output | What it is | Who reads it |
|---|---|---|
| Executive ESG Summary | The position in a form an executive can absorb and repeat, with data quality and completeness visible rather than smoothed away. | Executives, boards |
| GHG Inventory | The greenhouse-gas inventory across scopes, with activity data, methods and factors behind every line. | Sustainability teams, assurance providers |
| Sustainability / ESG Report | The full report across Environmental, Social and Governance topics, structured for disclosure. | Investors, regulators, the public |
| Board & Risk Pack | The position framed for oversight: what is material, what has changed, where the risk sits and how solid the underlying data is. | Boards, audit and risk committees |
| Audit Evidence Pack | The supporting evidence assembled for external examination, organised so that a reviewer can follow a figure to its source without a call. | Auditors, assurance providers |
| Detailed Calculation Annex | Every calculation, with its method, factor version and inputs. The document that answers “how exactly did you get that number”. | Assurance providers, technical reviewers |
| Assurance Workspace | A working surface for an external assurance provider: scope, requests, responses and evidence in one place. | Assurance providers |
| Submission Workspace | Preparation and management of submissions to the destinations an organisation reports into. | Sustainability teams |
Every output comes from a closed period.
No output in Carbonex is produced from data that is still moving. Each one is drawn from a closed period and says which period it came from.
The reason is reproducibility. An assurance provider examining a report next year needs to see what you saw when you published it, not what the data has become since. A figure that changes between the publication and the audit without an explanation is the single most damaging thing that can happen to a sustainability report’s credibility.
What we mean – and do not mean – by framework mapping.
Read this before the list.
Carbonex is in development. The frameworks below are mappings — two of them built and tested, three being built now, the rest planned. None of them is a certification we hold, and none of them is compliance we can confer.
No software product can make an organisation compliant with a reporting framework. Compliance is an organisational state, assessed by people – your reporting team, your auditors, your regulator. A platform can structure your data to match what a framework asks for, carry the evidence behind each disclosure, and make the gaps visible. It cannot do the assessing, and any vendor implying otherwise is describing something they cannot deliver.
What we are building is the mapping layer and the evidence trail underneath it. What you do with that is your organisation’s judgement, and your assurance provider’s.
Framework mappings, and where each one has got to
| Framework | Status | What the mapping covers |
|---|---|---|
| GHG Protocol | Built and tested | Scope 1, 2 and 3 accounting structure, organisational and operational boundaries, and the method and factor discipline the standard sets out. |
| ISSB / IFRS S1 & S2 | Built and tested | The general sustainability-related disclosure structure of S1 and the climate-specific requirements of S2, including the connection between sustainability data and financial reporting periods. |
| GRI | In development | The GRI structure of universal and topic standards, with material topics linked to the evidence supporting each disclosure. |
| ESRS / CSRD | In development | The ESRS datapoint structure, including double materiality assessment carried against the same evidence model as everything else. |
| SASB | In development | Industry-specific disclosure topics and metrics, aligned to the sector packs. |
| TCFD-style disclosures | Planned | The governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets structure that TCFD established and that subsequent frameworks build on. |
| CDP | Planned | The CDP questionnaire structure, prepared from the same underlying record rather than assembled separately each year. |
| UN SDG mapping | Planned | Mapping of reported activity and impact to the Sustainable Development Goals, for organisations that report against them. |
| Regional reporting templates | Planned | Regional and exchange-level disclosure templates that can be adjusted as requirements change, so a new regional requirement does not wait on a new version of the product. |
Where a mapping is built, it means the structure and the export views exist and are tested, and that a requirement without a mapping is shown as unmapped rather than left looking answered. It does not mean certified, accredited or independently verified — we hold nothing of that kind today, and we will name the body, the scope and the date if that ever changes.
Built to work with your assurance provider, not around them.
External assurance is a relationship between an organisation and a provider, and software should make that relationship cheaper rather than pretend to replace it.
The assurance workspace is being built as a shared space: the provider sees the scope, raises requests, receives responses with the evidence attached, and works against a closed period rather than a moving target. The requests and responses are kept in the same history as everything else, so the assurance process itself leaves a trail.
The evidence pack is being built to be read by a person and by a reviewer’s own tools — the same claims, provenance, approvals, change history and method references in a structured form as well as a printable one, so a reviewer can follow what supports a stated figure back to the facts, the calculation and the evidence beneath it. Alongside it, Carbonex is being built to run standing checks for evidence that is missing, out of date, contradicted or unsupported, and for changes made after approval.
None of that is an assurance opinion, and Carbonex will not issue one. The checks and the package are there to make a reviewer’s work possible; the conclusion remains the reviewer’s to reach.
Preparation, not just export.
The submission workspace is being built to manage the work around a submission – what is being submitted, to whom, from which closed period, prepared by whom and reviewed by whom – rather than simply producing a file at the end.
And the reporting does not end when the file is sent. When a source figure, an emission factor, a method or an organisational boundary changes afterwards, Carbonex is being built to show which current and draft outputs that change reaches and what needs reviewing again — while periods already closed and locked stay as they were. A correction to a closed period is made as a governed revision, visible as a revision, rather than by quietly restating the past.