Organisation profile

Yes, and whether it was assured. Every document is listed with its year and three assurance columns, one per scope, so you can tell at a glance whether a figure was third-party assured, disclosed without assurance, or neither. Annual reports, CDP questionnaires and product footprints all sit together.

The organisation's page names them, with job titles, so a request goes to the person who owns the data rather than to a generic procurement address. It is the difference between a question that gets answered and one that gets forwarded twice and then dropped.

Read it per scope. Each case study describes what an organisation actually did, drawn from its own published reports, and lists the individual reduction actions behind it. It covers what worked, with the organisation's own figures, rather than a statement of intent about the future.

Ask for what a peer already did. Each recommendation names a comparable organisation, the scope or Scope 3 category it cut, the reduction it achieved on a two or five year trend, and the specific action behind it, with an estimated reduction and an impact rating for the organisation in front of you.

The breakdown ranks the disclosed categories by share of the reported Scope 3 total, and states the count, for example five of fifteen categories disclosed. The count is the important half: a clean-looking split across five categories says nothing about the ten that were never reported.

Usually almost all of it, and the split says exactly how much. Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 are listed with the reported total and the percentage Scope 3 accounts for. An organisation reporting Scope 1 and 2 only is visible immediately as an incomplete picture.

Two readings side by side. The intensity band places the organisation's sector from very low to very high, and the trend line shows how that sector's emissions have moved since 2018. A low intensity sector moving the wrong way is a different conversation from a heavy sector improving fast.

A fifteen year bar chart of total reported emissions, from 2011 to the current year. Gaps are shown as gaps rather than interpolated, so a missing year reads as an organisation that did not report rather than one that emitted nothing.

Each initiative is listed with its status, active or not active, and the target or disclosure year where one applies. Coverage spans the Science Based Targets initiative, CDP, The Climate Pledge, the UN Global Compact, RE100 and Climate Action 100. Filter to active memberships only.

Criterion by criterion. Six groups cover industry, region, reporting, initiatives, reductions and reporting quality. Each row names the criterion, its weight, the points earned out of those available, the source consulted and the value found, for example a CDP database check returning disclosed. Filter to earned or unearned criteria.

Each published goal is held with its target year, its stated reduction and a status drawn from the organisation's own reported emissions, which is primary data under the GHG Protocol: behind target, at risk, or on track. The goal text is quoted verbatim from the document it came from, so the commitment being measured is the one the organisation made.

Yes, on the same organisation. Allocate spend to named products and DitchCarbon uses each product's own published footprint, then calculates whatever is left on the organisation emission factor. Each line shows units, kgCO2e, spend and its share of the total, so the two methods are visible side by side.

On the organisation's own page. Each product row carries its total kgCO2e per unit, the standard it was prepared to, the third-party verifier if there is one, whether the boundary is cradle to gate or cradle to grave, and a quality score. Filter by product name to find a specific model.

The history is held per attribute per year, eighteen attributes deep, from Scope 1 combustion through each disclosed Scope 3 category. Every cell shows the change against the prior year. Where an organisation has restated, the disclosure years are merged into one series rather than left as competing versions.