Catena-X and TFS
PCF Verification Framework

Version 1.0 open for public Consultation

Version 1.0

Table of Content
1. Glossary

4

2. Introduction

8

3. Scope

12

4. Normative Reference

13

5. Requirements

14

5.1 Objectiveness5.2 Relevance
5.3 Transparency
5.4 Confidentiality

14
14
14
14

6. Review Approaches

15

6.1 PCF Dataset Check
6.2 PCF Program Certification
6.2.1 Elements of a PCF program
6.2.2 Certification process
6.2.3 Reporting
6.2.4 Validity, surveillance, and re-certification
6.2.5 Competence requirements for a certifier
6.3 Verification
6.3.1 Verifier Affiliation
6.3.2 Verification process
6.3.3 Preparation
6.3.4 Planning
6.3.5 Cascading verification
6.3.6 Execution
6.3.7 Documentation
6.3.8 Reporting
6.3.9 Re-Verification
6.3.10 Competence requirements for a verifier

15
15
16
17
18
19
19
20
20
20
22
23
31
34
35
35
37
37

6.4 Validation

38

7. Annexes

39

A 1. PCF Data Model (excerpt)
A 2. Scope of Verification for Logistics (Normative Annex)
A 3. Calculation example of PCS
A 4. Definition formula for 1PVS and 2PVS
A 5. Main contributing companies from Catena-X and Together for Sustainability

2

39
40
41
42
43

Version 1.0
List of Figures
Figure 1: Levels of trust and related review approaches...............................................................................................9
Figure 2: Scope of a certification or verification engagement.....................................................................................10
Figure 3: Certification process flow chart ....................................................................................................................17
Figure 4: Verification process flow chart .....................................................................................................................21
Figure 5: Verification scope, system boundaries, physical and data flows .................................................................24
Figure 6: Floor plan of the rail production with main production processes ..............................................................24
Figure 7: Concept of Product Verification Share .........................................................................................................32
Figure 8: Exchange of verification statement using direct routes or indirect routes ..................................................36
Figure 9: Mechanism of verifiable credentials used for PCF exchange .......................................................................37
Figure 10: In- & outbound transport PCFs including verification ................................................................................40
Figure 11: Examples for special logistics cases ............................................................................................................41
Figure 12: Concept of Product Verification Share .......................................................................................................41
List of Tables
Table 1: Types of verification .......................................................................................................................................22
Table 2: Screening analysis ..........................................................................................................................................26
Table 3: Verification techniques ..................................................................................................................................27
Table 4: Examples of randomly selected inflows to meet 95% PCF coverage. ............................................................27
Table 5: Number of samples for control testing per year ...........................................................................................28
Table 6: Number of samples for substantive testing ...................................................................................................28
Table 7: Items for documentation and corresponding evidence ................................................................................30
Table 8: Calculation scheme for Figure 7.....................................................................................................................33
Table 9: Exemplary calculation for C1 with “regular” verification...............................................................................33
Table 10: Example for the multiplicative nature of 3PVS ............................................................................................34
Table 11: Calculation scheme for Figure 12.................................................................................................................423

Version 1.0

1. Glossary
TermDefinition

SourceAllocation

Partitioning the input or output flows of a process or a productsystem between the product system under study and one or moreother product systems.

DIN EN ISO 14040, Feb.
2021, p. 12

Carbon offsetting

Mechanism for compensating for a full PCF or a partial PCF throughthe prevention of the release of, reduction in, or removal of anamount of GHG emissions in a process outside the product system
under study.

ISO 14067:2019

Certification

PCF Program Certification.

adapted from ISO
17000:2020

3rd party attestation related to a conformity assessment of an object.
Here, the object is a client’s PCF Program.

For the sake of easy reading in this document this will be referenced as
certification.
ClientOrganization or person requesting a verification or validation for one
or several PCF data sets or a certification for a PCF Program.

adapted from ISO 140641:2019, p. 22

Cradle-to-gate

System boundary that is applied for a partial PCF assessment that
includes a part of the product’s life cycle. Cradle-to-gate represents
the GHG emissions and removals arising from all life cycle stages, up
to the point where the product leaves the production site (the“gate”). This explicitly excludes the life cycle stages use and end-oflife.

adapted from TFS PCF
Guideline 2022 and inreference to ISO 14067
6.3.4.2 System boundary
options

Customer

Party that receives a product and the PCF dataset for this product or
the receiver of the information that a supplier has a certified PCF
program.

Level of assurance

Degree of confidence in the PCF dataset verified through 3rd party
verification, it can be either limited or reasonable.

adapted from DIN EN ISO
14064-1. June 2019. P. 23.

Materiality

Concept that individual misstatements or the aggregation of
misstatements could change the overall PCF result and/or influence
the intended users’ decisions.

adapted from ISO 14064-3

Material
misstatement

A difference between the reported amount, classification,
presentation, or disclosure of a value and the amount, classification,
presentation, or disclosure that is required for the item to be inaccordance with the applicable framework.
Misstatements can arise from error or fraud.
Misstatements are material, if individually or in aggregation, it isreasonable to be expected that relevant decisions of a user taken on
the basis of the statement are influenced.

4

Version 1.0

Party, first, secondor third

Person, personnel or organization/company.
1st party: Personnel from the same, i.e. supplierorganization/company.
2nd party: Personnel from an organization/company that is customerof the first party.
3rd party: Personnel from an organization/company that is neither
supplier, customer nor competitor.

adapted from ISO 17029

PCF dataset

Full set of data attributes that is defined in the TFS Guideline and by
the Catena-X PCF data model.

CX PCF data model & TFS
Guideline

PCF documentation

Documents provided by the party seeking verification (client),
presenting the PCF information package to be verified reflecting alldetails to be evaluated.

PCF Program

System governing how a company generates and manages productcarbon footprints

PCF Program
Certification

See Certification.

PCF system model

Mathematical representation of a physical system and theincorporated processes to calculate a PCF (covering both simple orcomplex/automated calculations).

PCF result

Total PCF excluding biogenic CO2 expressed in CO2eq per declared unitof product during the transition period set in the rulebooks/guidelineor full set of required PCF values to comply with ISO 14067.

PCF review

General term used in this document when all types of increasing trust
into PCF dataset generation are addressed, therefore reflecting PCF
dataset verification, PCF dataset validation, and PCF program
certification conducted by a reviewing party.

Primary data

Quantified value of a unit process or an activity obtained from a direct
measurement, or a calculation based on direct measurements at its
original source.
Note 1 to entry: Primary data need not necessarily originate from theproduct system under study because primary data may relate to adifferent but comparable product system to that being assessed.
Note 2 to entry: Primary data may include GHG emission factors and/or
GHG activity data (defined in ISO 14064-1:2006, 2.11).

Risk Control Matrix(RCM)

A risk and control matrix serves as a comprehensive tool that outlines
an organization's risk landscape. It encompasses potential risk events,
corresponding risk control strategies, and the anticipated results ofimplementing these controls.

Reviewing party

General term in this document for a party conducting a verification,
certification or validation. See also more specifically “verifier” or“validator”.
5

https://github.com/eclipsetractusx/sldt-semanticmodels/tree/main/io.catenax.pcf

CX-PCF-Rulebook and TFS
Guideline

ISO 14067:2019

Version 1.0

Rulebooks

Refers in this document to CX-PCF-Rulebook and TFS PCF Guideline inmost recent published versions.

Sample check

Form of an inspection in which only a selection of objects (samples)from the full population of objects is inspected. Also known as spot
check.

Screening analysis

Documents and describes the decision for the initial inclusions of
inputs and outputs and the assumptions on which the cut-off
thresholds required by the rulebooks are reached.

Self-similarity

A self-similar object is exactly or approximately similar to a part of itself
i.e., the whole has the same shape as one or more of the parts.

Secondary data

Data obtained from sources other than primary data. Secondary data
can include data from databases and published literature, default
emission factors from national inventories, calculated data estimatesor other representative data.

Targeted testing

Targeted testing involves selecting items to be tested based on somecharacteristic. It is the preferred approach for tests of details as itprovides the opportunity to exercise significant judgment over whatitems are to be tested.

Trust technology

Technology that enhances and propagates trust across supply chains.

Validation

Environmental information validation: Process for evaluating theplausibility of assumptions, limitations and methods that support anenvironmental information statement about the outcome of future
activities.

adapted from ISO
14067:2019

The term “environmental information validation” is shortened to“validation” in this document to reduce sentence complexity and aid
understanding.
Validator

Competent and impartial person(s) with responsibility for performing
an and reporting on a validation process.

adapted from DIN EN ISO
14064-1. June 2019. P. 23.

Value stream

All processes oriented at customer demand, that are in particular
product and information flows.

ISO 22468:2020(en)Verification

Environmental information verification: Process for evaluating anenvironmental information statement based on historical data andinformation to determine whether the statement conforms with therelevant criteria.

based on ISO 14065:2020,
3.3.15 andISO 14066:2023(en), 3.4.5

The term “environmental information verification” is shortened to“verification” in this document to reduce sentence complexity and aid
understanding.
Verifier

Competent and impartial person(s) with responsibility for performing
and reporting on a verification process.

6

adapted from DIN EN ISO
14064-1. June 2019. P. 22.

Version 1.0

Verification report

Document created by the verifier documenting all relevant steps along
the verification process, which is shared with the client.

Verification result

Judgement of the verifier derived based on the evaluation of the PCF
report and assessed evidence, that can be either positive or negative.

Verification
statement

Declaration by the verifier of the outcome of the verification process,which the client can share with its customer receiving the PCF dataset.

7

adapted from ISO/IEC
17029:2019(en), 3.7

Version 1.0

2. Introduction
Various Stakeholders, including customers, investors, and regulators, rely on Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) data to
make informed decisions about sustainability and climate action. Without trust in the reported PCF results,
stakeholders may be skeptical of the claims made by companies and may question the effectiveness of sustainability
efforts. Thus, building trust in PCF results is essential for ensuring that sustainability efforts are credible and effective.
Sharing of PCF results across supply chains via interoperable ecosystems is enabled through a common PCF data
model and PCF data exchange format. In case this PCF data model is filled in with a PCF result and additional
attributes providing context this is referred to as PCF dataset. While there is the understanding that 3rd party verified
PCF results are giving the highest level of trust, an immediately scalable approach with a PCF program certification
is described. With a 3rd party certified PCF program an organization can create trust in its capability to generate PCF
results in line with recognized standards. Beyond 3rd party verification and PCF program certification 1st and 2nd party
verification are introduced as verification options that fall short of 3rd party verification in terms of level of trust.
Catena-X (CX) and Together for Sustainability (TFS) have jointly developed this PCF Verification Framework forverifying Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) results and datasets shared across the automotive and chemical supply
chains. The Catena-X-PCF-Rulebook applies for Catena-X members calculating PCF results and sharing them as PCF
datasets, while for TFS members the TFS PCF Guideline applies. Therefore, when mentioning ‘rulebooks’ in thisdocument the latest published version of both is referred to. For normative references refer to chapter 4.
In the glossary (see chapter 1), this framework establishes definitions of key terms and concepts related to PCF result
and PCF dataset verification or validation and to PCF Program certification.
This framework complements the requirements for PCF calculation in the rulebooks providing clarity and guidance
for the verification of PCFs. Further, this guideline provides requirements for PCF Program certification through 3rdparty certification.
This document addresses companies preparing for a verification or certification and also addresses verifying andcertifying parties.
For this framework, three levels of trust have been defined, each with specific underlying procedures, purposes, andscopes. Figure 1 illustrates the trust levels and related review approaches, reflecting the PCF dataset check,certification and verification / respectively validation addressed within this framework. For detailed guidance on all
review approaches related to each trust level refer to chapter 6.
PCF dataset check, PCF verification and PCF validation are conducted in reference to a single or multiple specific PCF
dataset. PCF Program Certification, on the other hand, is carried out in reference to processes, management
approaches and tools to calculate PCFs, where applicable. In the case of certification, only sample PCF data sets areassessed.

8

Version 1.0

Figure 1: Levels of trust and related review approaches
Trust Level 1 is the entry level and applies to the use of (automated) solutions to perform PCF dataset completenesschecks, including conformity with the PCF data models, transferred through data exchange platforms and connected
solutions. This level of trust does not constitute any type of verification or certification. For detailed guidance referto chapter 6.1.
Trust Level 2 refers to the certification of PCF programs operated by companies against requirements described inchapter 6.2. The certificate of an independent third party demonstrates that a company operating a PCF program isable to organize and to run PCF calculations in line with the requirements of the respective rulebook. PCF calculation
solutions, automated and/or manual tools, operated by the respective company shall be included in the PCF program
certification under Level 2.
Trust level 3 refers to the verification of specific PCF datasets by an independent party. A 3rd party verification gives
the recipient of the PCF dataset the highest level of trust. Refer to chapter 6.3 for detailed guidance. A verificationof specific PCF datasets can also be conducted by a 1st party or by a 2nd party, both with the precondition of theexistence of a PCF program certification. The trust level associated to a 1st party or a 2nd party verification ranges
below a 3rd party verification.
Despite the fact that a PCF dataset can be verified, the included PCF result cannot be understood as being the true
absolute PCF value. A verification tells the receiver, that the PCF dataset has been generated following therequirements of the respective rulebook with a certain confidence level, see chapter 6.3.3.1.
The PCF program certification can be used by companies to qualify their management processes and procedures for
the PCF calculation. Specific PCF datasets exchanged may not have been evaluated during a certification as describedin chapter 6.2. However, the existence of a 3rd party certified PCF Program provides trust into the organization’s
capability of generating PCF datasets according to the respective rulebook.
Via the Catena-X and TFS ecosystems PCF datasets will be shared throughout supply chains from tier to tier to beaggregated up to the final PCF provider and recipient. Each supplier of a PCF dataset takes responsibility for theaccurate and trustworthy application of the rulebooks and integrates PCF data from its suppliers.
As the PCF data aggregation is executed as a self-similar process in each tier level, verification of PCF data is executedin the same way. Each company in the supply chain will request verification of their PCF data relying on the PCF
verification status achieved by its suppliers or utility providers. With each tier seeking and obtaining verification of
its own operations (gate-to-gate), the entire chain (cradle-to-gate) can eventually be verified (see chapter 6.3.4.12).
Figure 2 illustrates the scope of a verification or certification engagement. The green dotted frame gives the scopeconsidering a case where company B seeks e.g. verification for PCF datasets from production B1. Company B uses
only production B1 to produce one or several products in the scope of a related verification engagement. While
production B2 and B3 belong to company B as well and may be at the same or different production sites, the products
9Version 1.0
or components produced in these plants are out of scope for the respective verification engagement. They do notsupply parts or materials to the products in scope of a verification engagement. The green dotted frame can also
reflect the scope for a PCF program certification engagement.

Figure 2: Scope of a certification or verification engagement
The engagement for PCF dataset verification or PCF program certification with a 3rd party is described in chapters
6.1ff and 6.2ff. In the course of a certification engagement, the certifier receives the client´s PCF program
documentation and the corresponding evidence to certify that the PCF program has all elements described inchapter 6.2.1, which are the bases for a certification of the client’s capability to generate PCF datasets in accordancewith the respective rulebook. In the course of a verification engagement, the verifier receives in addition the client´s
PCF dataset(s) and the corresponding evidence to verify if this or these PCF dataset(s) have been generated inaccordance with the criteria and scope that are defined as pre-engagement activities following chapter 6.3.3.
Both rulebooks provide guidance and requirements to establish and calculate a Primary Data Share and a Data
Quality Rating, which are both reflected as attributes in the PCF dataset and are intended to be cascaded from tierto tier enabling the final recipient of the PCF dataset to understand which share of the PCF result is calculated basedon primary data and which overall data quality rating the PCF result has. This PCF Verification Framework does notprescribe any minimum value for the primary data share to achieve verification. Nevertheless, it has to be stated,that secondary data do not represent the actual supply chain, but reflect an average mix of technologies, regions,
and/or are using estimated information to calculate PCFs.
In addition to Data Quality Rate (DQR) and Primary Data Share (PDS) information, this framework introduces new
indicators to reflect and propagate the verification and/or certification status of a PCF data set (Chapters 6.3.5 and6.2.3).
This PCF Verification Framework does not prescribe any minimum requirement for a Data Quality Rating for PCF
datasets, either.
The PCF Verification Framework also does not prescribe any mandatory or minimum level of trust, but rather
describes PCF review options to choose from.

10

Version 1.0
It is subject to decisions taken within an industry initiative, an ecosystem or by the actors in a business-to-business
relationship to create incentives or requirements related to indicators like Primary Data Share (PDS) or Data Quality
Rating (DQR).
Finally, this PCF Verification Framework will be made available to the public for feedback to improve the verificationand certification framework for Product Carbon Footprinting in the automotive and chemical supply chains.

11Version 1.0

3. Scope
The scope of this document is to provide guidelines for the verification of the product carbon footprint according to
the PCF rulebooks. The document is applicable to all companies and suppliers in the automotive and chemical supply
chains or all those outside the aforementioned industries who opt to report according to those PCF rulebooks. The
framework covers the entire certification process for PCF programs and the verification process of PCF datasets,
including the planning, execution, and creation of the verification report and the verification statement.
The scope of the described review approaches and achievable trust levels is gate-to-gate from the perspective of theclient, illustrated as Company B in Figure 2. Thus, each tier in the supply chain takes responsibility for reaching acertain trust level of the PCF contribution under its control.
Cradle-to-gate is applied as system boundary in the rulebooks for calculating PCFs and the PCF result is subject to areview approach that reflects this system boundary.
In order to complete a verification of the cradle-to-gate PCF dataset, which is then passed on to the customer, dataof upstream stages are included in the evaluation. This evaluation should use verified PCFs of suppliers and covers
the accurate use of supplier PCF data in the PCF calculation. Chapter 6.3.4.12 and Chapter 6.3.5 provide details how
to deal with verified or unverified upstream PCF datasets. Each tier is responsible for its share of the PCF (gate-togate) and its verification, so that aggregated the cradle-to-gate scope can be covered by verification. Therefore, theverified PCF result reflects cradle-to-gate emissions, even if the individual scope of verification engagement is limited
to gate-to-gate.
Whenever ensuring plausibility of future-oriented/predicted PCFs the expression ‘validation’ is used. The current
versions of the rulebooks do not provide any requirements or guidance on predicted PCFs therefore the current
version of this PCF Verification Framework focuses on verification, certification and PCF dataset checks. In order toaddress the validation of projected PCF results, it is first necessary to expand the rulebooks. In this current version
more specific guidance on validation is out of scope. More guidance on validation may be added, once there areclear requirements established in the rulebooks on the calculation of predicted PCFs.
The document does not cover specific methodologies for calculating product carbon footprints. Verification ofcarbon offsets are out of scope of this document. Other environmental impact categories or sustainability indicators
to assess product sustainability in a wider scope have not been explicitly addressed by the document, transferability
may be evaluated case by case.

12Version 1.0

4. Normative Reference
Catena-X Product Carbon Footprint Rulebook 1 (CX-PCF Rules) or TFS PCF Guideline 2, both in the latest publishedversion and the standards these documents are referencing to. All requirements of the rulebooks shall be checked
if accurately applied.

1 https://catena-x.net/fileadmin/user_upload/Standard-Bibliothek/Update_September23/CX-0029-ProductCarbonFootprintRulebook-v2.0.0.pdf
2 https://www.tfs-initiative.com/how-we-do-it/scope-3-ghg-emissions

13

Version 1.0

5. Requirements
5.1 Objectiveness
Refers to the ability to perceive or represent something as it is, without being influenced by personal feelings,
interpretations, or prejudices. Therefore, the verifier or certifier shall not be involved in setting up a company’s PCF
program or PCF calculation. This applies regardless of the party the verifier is associated with.

5.2 Relevance
Refers to the extent to which the PCF result and documentation is pertinent and applicable to the specific purposeof the PCF dataset verification or PCF Program Certification. The certification or verification shall ensure that the
management processes, PCF data and related information is relevant to the specific purpose and context of theverification or certification engagement, and that any limitations or uncertainties are clearly communicated. Thisrequirement is important to ensure that the verification or certification results are useful and meaningful to theintended users and stakeholders.

5.3 Transparency
Refers to the details and clarity of the documentation and the certification/verification process. The verification or
certification process shall be transparent to the client and documented by the reviewing party. The documentation
provided by the client seeking a certification or verification is clear and addresses the relevant topics of the PCF
dataset generation, the calculation approaches, the impact assessment, the interpretation, and reporting.

5.4 Confidentiality
Emphasizes the importance of protecting sensitive information related to the generation of PCF datasets. The
reviewing party must ensure that the information is only shared with authorized parties and that the appropriate
measures are in place to maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

14

Version 1.0

6. Review Approaches
Referring to Figure 1 three levels of trust are differentiated in this document. In this chapter the approaches to reachthe respective level of trust are described.

6.1 PCF Dataset Check
Considering the use case of sharing PCF datasets via digital ecosystems, the first level of trust for a PCF is reached if
the PCF dataset passed a completeness and conformity check with the selected rulebook and the latest version of
the respective PCF data model (see ANNEX A 1 for an example excerpt of the data model). The PCF Dataset checkdoes not address any aspect of the underlying PCF calculation.
A PCF dataset shall be provided in the respective PCF data exchange format. This format includes mandatory,
optional and default attributes, with a prescribed data type per attribute.
The completeness check of PCF dataset against the selected data model ensures that all mandatory fields are filled
in. The conformity check ensures that all attributes are filled in using the respective required data type. The
mandatory attributes and their data type are aligned between different initiatives aiming to share PCFs along supply
chains. Various attributes only allow entries from a predefined selection list. The conformity check shall ensure thatdata entries comply with the respective selection list.
Default values refer to data attributes that allow only a specific entry to comply with a rulebook, e.g. the attribute#coveragepercent# can only have a ‘100’ if reporting according to Catena-X PCF or TFS rulebook. The conformity
check shall ensure that the only possible entry is set.
The PCF dataset check shall be performed by the reviewing party manually or via a certified software solution
ensuring that the data is in accordance with the requirements of the respective rulebook.
Conformity checks can be combined with additional plausibility checks ensuring that values for a certain attributemeet further requirements, e.g. a #GeographyCountrySubdivision# should be in line within the corresponding
attribute #GeographyCountry#.

6.2 PCF Program Certification
This chapter describes the certification process necessary to achieve level 2 of trust into PCF datasets, as outlined in
the introduction (chapter 2) and illustrated in Figure 1.
The process in scope aims at certifying that the company calculating PCFs has established a PCF program in line withthe respective rulebook. The PCF program shall include a description of the methodology used by the company tocalculate PCFs. If applicable, the deployment of any automated PCF calculation solution (tool and integrated data
sources and IT management) is also subject to certification. An automated PCF calculation solution is defined as adigital tool enabling mass calculations of PCFs in an automated manner.
The rulebooks do not mandate any PCF program or an automated PCF calculation solution. It is in the interest of theindividual companies to adopt a company-specific approach, which is in line with the calculation rules in therespective rulebook and the following chapters.
The certification can only be done through a 3rd party appointed by the Catena-X Association or Together for
Sustainability for their respective rulebook. Appointment process and criteria will be defined by the associations.
The scope of the certification shall be clearly defined (e.g. organizational units, products, product groups, sites, etc.).
The PCF program certification shall ensure that the methodological requirements set out in the respective rulebook
are followed, including the respective mandatory attributes in the respective PCF data model. Certified PCF programs
and automated PCF calculation systems shall include a process for the PCF dataset check. In addition, the elementsof the PCF program described in 6.2.1 shall be ensured.
The PCF program certification shall only be used for systems, processes and calculation solutions deployed within agiven company and reflecting this company’s unique situation. Unlike the PCF verification described in chapter 6.3
15

Version 1.0
this certification does not certify any specific PCF dataset for a product, nor does it claim any output (e.g., a specific
PCF result or dataset) of a tool or program as certified, verified or in any other way assessed.
Calculations and data issued from certified PCF programs may be used as inputs to PCF verification and validation
activities (see chapter 6.3 & 6.4). If the PCF program or automated calculation solutions are already certified andtherefore known and trusted, individual PCF verification activities may build on this and therefore be simplified.
A PCF program certification is mandatory to obtain a 1st or 2nd party verification. However, a PCF program
certification is not mandatory to obtain a 3rd party verification of a specific PCF dataset.
PCF program certifications cannot be substituted by existing certification schemes like ISO 9001 or ISO 14001.

6.2.1 Elements of a PCF program
The PCF program refers to the system governing how a company generates and manages product carbon footprints.
The described system shall have the goal to allow streamlined, efficient PCF generation with a constantly maintained
quality level. The PCF program requires the following elements:
 Definition of set-up: Identify and document company-internal stakeholders, production sites and parts of acompany contributing to the PCF calculation process through data collection, processing, and transmission. The
scope description of the calculation system shall also detail which products are covered under this PCF program,as well as how and which software solutions and databases are used. It shall cover a description of the expertiseof PCF program responsible persons in the company.
 Data Management: Description of the primary and secondary data collection process, data quality assurance,
application of the cut-off rule, procedures for data consolidation, processing, aggregation, calculation, and datatransmission using the PCF data model. In case of estimate on activity or emission factor data, their use shallbe documented with a description of the rationale of application. Furthermore, the system of archiving of data
and data models shall be described. Documentation of software used, of their intervals for update and the
documentation of secondary databases used.
 Roles & Responsibilities: Structuring the tasks, roles, and responsibilities within the organization, establishing
reporting relationships, and allocating resources effectively. Training procedures as well as competency
management shall be included.
 Methodology implementation: Documentation on systematic and coherent rulebook implementation (e.g.,multi-output processes and allocation, integration of supplier data, justification for use of certain productcategory rules (PCRs), selection of secondary databases, etc.). In case decisions on options are to be made theseshall be justified and documented.
 Governance: Documentation of internal procedures for PCF calculations, including processes for updating
calculations and databases, responding to methodological changes, time validity of calculations, and the quality
assessment of both primary and secondary data, among others. Risks (e.g. selecting wrong data, many manual
data transfers, etc.) shall be evaluated, and those risks shall be addressed and mitigated.
 Establishing internal controls: Establishing controls can include activities like quality assurance processes(monitoring and evaluating compliance with the rulebooks), supporting analytics (4-eyes principle, automatedplausibility checks, etc.), sample calculations, etc.. The effectiveness of controls regarding the calculation
process shall be regularly evaluated. A continuous monitoring for the internal control shall be put in place.
 PCF Dataset Sharing: Procedures may be established for the sharing of calculated PCFs both internally andexternally. This step shall include definition of criteria (e.g. data quality thresholds, geographical scope, etc.) todetermine suitability for external publication of PCFs calculated via the calculation process.

16

Version 1.0

6.2.2 Certification process
The following flow chart provides an overview on the certification process in total.

Figure 3: Certification process flow chart

17

Version 1.0
The certification process procedure is similar to the verification process procedure and described step by step in 6.3.
Certifying a PCF program (and automated PCF calculation solution if applicable) involves a comprehensive evaluation
process to ensure its accuracy, reliability, and adherence to the rulebooks. The following activities are included:
1.
2.
3.

4.

Select an independent certification body: The client selects an appointed certification body.
Application and documentation: The client shall submit the PCF Program documentation (and automatedPCF calculation solution if applicable) for certification, providing detailed documentation on technicalspecifications, methodologies, data sources, and any other relevant information required for evaluation.
Conformity Assessment of the required PCF Program Element according to 6.2.1: The certification bodywill thoroughly evaluate the PCF program (and automated PCF calculation solution if applicable) by checking
their documentation and implementation. This includes sample and targeted checks. Recalculation and/or
retracing of sample PCFs datasets shall be done in case of multiple products for at least 3 representative
products. Data sources, data collection processes, and calculation methodologies will be analyzed to ensure
they are robust, transparent, and aligned with the respective rulebook. In case of insufficient evidence,
feedback loops to clarify open points can be used. It is recommended that a senior representative from theclient’s PCF team is involved to facilitate efficient execution by providing additional explanations or
justification.
Issuance of certificate: Based on the evaluation and certification process, the certification body will issue adetailed report highlighting the PCF programs compliance and any areas for improvement. If the PCF
program (and automated PCF calculation solution if applicable) meets the certification criteria, a certificate
will be issued.

In the event of the certificate issuance being denied, meaning a negative certification result, re-application is possible
after correction of any deviations.

6.2.3 Reporting
To promote the trust into PCF datasets being shared across the supply chain a performance indicator is defined thatallows the recipient of the PCF dataset to recognize what share of the PCF result was calculated by PCF program
certified suppliers. This indicator is named PCF-Program Certification Share (PCS) and is propagated and reportedwith the PCF result analogue to the product verification shares that are introduced in chapter 6.3.5.

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =|𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 [𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂2 𝑒𝑒]|
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 [𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂2 𝑒𝑒]
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =∑𝑖𝑖 ��𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙,𝑖𝑖 � ⋅ 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 �∑𝑖𝑖 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑖𝑖Annex A 3 provides an example of the PCS calculation.
The certification statement shall include:







certification statement identifier,certifier identification,
name of certifying person,
definition of scope,
issue date,certifier’s digital signature.

The certification statement can be shared with client and customer in the way as the verification statement
described on chapter 6.3.8.2.

18

Version 1.0

6.2.4 Validity, surveillance, and re-certification
The certificate shall be valid for a maximum of three years after initial certification. The certificate will only be valid
as long as the assessed PCF program (and if applicable, the automated PCF calculation solution) does not undergochanges. If there are changes in any way which may impact the certification decision, including methodology changes(e.g., new version of the respective rulebook), the certificate holder shall notify the certification body about thechanges. The certification body shall evaluate if the certificate is still valid, if and which evaluation techniques need
to be applied to re-certify the conformance of the PCF program, or if the certificate must be withdrawn.
The PCF program (and if applicable, the automated PCF calculation solution) shall be subject to periodic, at least one
annual internal review to ensure that changes do not go unnoticed, and the program continues to meet the required
standards.
Re-certification shall be carried out well in advance of certificate expiry to maintain the certification. Re-certification
shall be necessary after not more than three years after issuance of the certificate. The scope of the re-certification
should be focused on major changes. In addition, re-certification will also address changes to rulebooks which
require process or other alterations.
Irrespective of the expiry of a certification program, the link between a PCF data set and a 3rd party certification valid
at the time of issuance of the PCF will persist and retain its validity as long as the PCF data set is valid.

6.2.4.1 Internal review
An internal review performed by a competent reviewer shall ensure and document that the internal processes
adhere to the certified quality requirements. An internal review shall be done on an annual basis or as soon aschanges to the assessed PCF program (and if applicable, the automated PCF calculation solution) were made which
may impact the certification decision. The internal reviews shall be documented for re-certification.
The reviewer can be affiliated with the same company it is reviewing as long as the reviewer can prove theindependence from the PCF program. The reviewer shall be knowledgeable in the field of PCF and the related
rulebooks.

6.2.5 Competence requirements for a certifier
The competence criteria for a verifier described in chapter 6.3.10 shall be met by the certifier.
Additionally, the certifier shall have knowledge about:







The essential PCF program elements listed in 6.2.1.
The certification process of the PCF program listed in 6.2.2.
Reporting and communication requirements of a PCF according to the rulebooks.
Quality management systems, approaches, and best-practices(e.g., ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 14067 Annex C).
Implementation of automated PCF calculation solution, maintenance, quality assurance, and best-practices.

19Version 1.0

6.3 Verification
6.3.1 Verifier Affiliation
In the most common case, a 3rd party, fully independent from the client, acts as verifier. However, verification by a
1st or 2nd party is also possible. With the choice of a 1st, 2nd or 3rd party verifier the achievable degree of trust is
defined as well as the admissible degree of insight to background data that can be given to the verifier. Aside fromthese differences the same procedures shall be followed no matter whether 1st, 2nd or 3rd party verification isenvisaged. The following chapters describe a 3rd party verification without limitation of applicability to a 1st and 2ndparty verification (this explicitly applies also to the competence requirements for a verifier as described in chapter
6.3.10). Otherwise, the differences are clearly marked.
In the case of a 2nd party verification, the 2nd party (i.e., the customer) would request and be granted access toadditional data on top of the regular PCF data-model from the supplier to enable an expert judgement on theplausibility of the exchanged PCF.
A necessary pre-condition of a 2nd party verification is a valid PCF program certification of the supplier (i.e. trust level2). Moreover, the parties may sign a non-disclosure agreement about the additional data exchange. With suchcondition fulfilled, the 2nd party shall request confidential access to the following additional data (as a minimum
requirement):
Location of production,
declaration of supplier type (e.g. manufacturer or distributor),
adoption of specific PCRs in the PCF calculation,other data which are included in the PCF data model but have not yet been provided, because declared as“optional” or not yet “mandatory” at the time of the PCF exchange,
 manufacturing technology employed. The 2nd party and the supplier shall mutually agree on adequate data
disclosure.






The additional data may be exchanged electronically by leveraging digital data exchange platform functionalities
provided in Catena-X or TFS networks.
The 2nd party shall review the exchanged data and assess the plausibility of the PCF value. As an example, the 2ndparty may compare the PCF with other available data in the lifecycle data inventory (e.g. other primary data fromother suppliers of analogous or similar products and/or secondary data references) and request explanation on any
peculiarities from the supplier. Such assessment shall be conducted by a LCA practitioner with the qualification
defined in chapter 6.3.10..
The 2nd party verification assessment shall be conducted in reasonable time, not exceeding 3 months. In case of apositive verification, a verification statement will be issued. In the specific case of a 2nd party verification the identityof the verifying party shall not be disclosed.
In case of a failed verification, no verification statement shall be issued, however re-application is possible.

6.3.2 Verification process
The following flow chart provides an overview on the verification process in total.

20

Version 1.0

Figure 4: Verification process flow chart
21

Version 1.0

6.3.3 Preparation
Before the start of the verification activity, the client shall define the product and agree with the verifier on thecontent of the activity according to process illustrated in Figure 4. The parties should agree on the specific verification
process based on this framework to be performed.
Essential parts of the agreement are type of verification, objectives, criteria, timeline and scope. The client canrequest an on-site visit to perform the verification. Signing an agreement ends the preparation phase.

6.3.3.1 Types of verification
The targeted level of assurance shall be defined considering the situation and goals of the client and the needs ofthe intended use. The level of assurance describes the verifier’s level of confidence in the PCF dataset and underlying
information. A distinction is made between a regular and an in-depth verification. In case of a 3rd party verificationthese alternatives are referred to as reasonable assurance and limited assurance.
Limited assurance means that the PCF dataset is supported by information that allows the verifier to form an opinion
that the statement is generally conformant with the evidence checked. Nothing came to the attention of the verifierthat the PCF dataset is misstated by the client.
In-depth verification provides a higher level of confidence in a PCF dataset for the intended use. For in-depth
verification, a verifier will use control testing (design and effectiveness) and enhanced sample testing to form apositive statement that this PCF dataset is correct. (see 6.3.4.3 ff)
An overview of the two confidence levels (regular/limited assurance and in-depth/reasonable assurance) is given in
Table 1.
Detection of material misstatements is more likely for an in-depth verification compared to a regular verification
due to a higher number of tests. Coverage of PCF of higher than 80% in this verification context means, that theevidence documents checked during the verification process cover sufficient items which represent at least 80% of
the PCF value.
Table 1: Types of verification

Assurance level (3rd party only)
Control tests
PCF model check
Sample testing of evidence

RegularIn-Depth

limited assurance

reasonable assurance

low, test of 1 per control

high

yes

yes

> 80% coverage of PCF> 95% coverage of PCF

It shall be possible to switch from in-depth to regular during the verification process.

6.3.3.2 Criteria
The client shall create PCFs and report in accordance with the respective rulebook.

6.3.3.3 Objectives
The objective of the verification is to reach a conclusion about the accuracy, correctness, and completeness of the
PCF dataset in accordance with the above defined criteria.
The subject matter of the PCF dataset shall be clearly defined: An individual product such as a single reference number.
 A homogenous product group corresponding to the definition of homogenous products according to therespective rulebook.
22

Version 1.0
 A product group consisting of individual products.
 A group of similar or individual products out of a specific production site or part of a production site.

6.3.3.4 Scope of the verification
The scope for the verification shall be clearly defined and includes:









Subject matter,
Functional or declared unit,
System boundaries,
Production process/technology/facilities,
Life cycle inventories
GHG sources, removals, sinks and reservoirs,
Impact assessment,
Reference time period (recommended baseline for the historical data is one year, as stated in the rulebooks torule out seasonal fluctuations).

Verification of carbon offsets are out of scope of this document.
As the PCF’s reporting scope is always cradle-to-gate, it is the client’s responsibility to report cradle-to-gate PCF
values to the customer. In case the client organization is in charge of its own outbound logistic, it shall also take careof the calculation and verification of the emissions for this relation. For details refer to Annex A 2.

6.3.4 Planning
6.3.4.1 Strategic analysis and risk assessment
Before starting the verification, the verifier shall perform an assessment of the risk of material misstatement(inherent risk, control risk and detection risk) of the PCF. Therefore, the verifier needs to understand the complexityof the production steps for the product(s), complexity of quantification methods, the control environment andmindset regarding controls, if estimates are used for significant parts of the PCF as well as experience and skills of
the personnel for the PCF value to be verified. The verifier shall use the results of the risk assessment to develop theverification plan and document request list. In case of increased risk additional documents and samples might beneeded. A visualization of the verification scope, the system boundaries and the relevant flows as shown in Figure 5
shall be provided by the verified party.
Figure 5 shows a generic situation. To make the verification planning more tangible an example is given in the box
below. All text in grey color and highlighted through boxes throughout the document is for illustration using apractical example only.
The example concerns a production site for Diesel Rails. A Diesel Rail is a component of a Diesel injection
system for internal combustion engines. Diesel from the vehicle fuel tank is delivered and compressedto high pressures by a Diesel pump and delivered to the Diesel rail. The rail serves as intermediatestorage for the Diesel injectors which meter the fuel with multiple injections for single combustion
stroke. Each engine cylinder is equipped with an injector, and these are connected via high pressure
hydraulic lines with the Diesel rail.
The rail production is located in one specific building at the production site, so that all GHG emissions
associated with the final production of the rail can be recorded by a physical system boundary
comprising that building.

23

Version 1.0

Figure 5: Verification scope, system boundaries, physical and data flows

Figure 6: Floor plan of the rail production with main production processes
Figure 6 depicts the floor plan of the building. The starting point for the inhouse production is forgedparts which are either externally or internally machined. Some production steps are specific to certain
rail types only.
The PCF of forged parts and all other supplied parts assembled to the final rail is provided by therespective suppliers including the contribution of inbound logistics.
24Version 1.0
Electricity consumption of the building is recorded electronically on a quarter-hourly base. The same
applies to hot / cold water and compressed air as supplied by the plant’s central energy facility. The
process gas for leakage testing is recorded by weekly pressure readings. Detergents and lubricants arerecorded by the monthly refill quantities and documented by the plant logistics. Machining chips
constitutes the production waste that is collected and weighed on a monthly base. The number ofsupplied parts and final rails is tracked by the plants ERP system.
Within this step the level of data availability and the management controls in place for data input and calculation
model and tool (including allocation) for the PCF calculation are to be assessed. Therefore, the verifier shall collectthe following information (ideally from the PCF program documentation) and assess the risk and strategy throughan interview.
Type of verification (see Table 1),
Overview of the complexity of the verified system and calculation model(s),Reference time period and consistent availability of evidence for the period under consideration,
Experience, skill level and training of personnel,
Risk of misstatement (e.g. degree of automated vs. manual data collection),
Level of detail of the available documentation,
Management controls for data input and PCF calculation (e.g. down times in data processing or controls),
Likelihood of omission of significant emission sources and possible data gaps
(e.g. see screening analysis in accordance with cut off limit as defined in the rulebooks), Documentation and results of the previous verification, if applicable.










6.3.4.1.1 Review of the screening analysis
A screening analysis is an approach applied by the verified party to assess the general data used in the PCF
calculation. It shows which types of data were used in general, if the sources are trustful and how significant thedata are influencing the overall PCF result. In some cases, scenarios can be done by replacing datasets with others
to decide which data are used in the final PCF calculation. The results of the screening analysis, which may be partof a background report and may be related to multiple datasets, shall be reviewed by the verifier. The verifier shallselect one random sample of the values that are excluded in the PCF calculation as insignificant according to the cutoff-rule specified in the respective rulebook. For this sample it shall be reviewed if it can be proven that the value
has an immaterial impact on the PCF value.
Misstatements, including omissions, are material if they, individually or aggregated, can influence relevant decisionsof a user taken on the basis of the PCF calculation. An example is shown in Table 2. It shows, that the railbody has
the most significant impact to the PCF.

25

Version 1.0

A screening analysis for the Diesel rail production yields the following result:
Table 2: Screening analysis
Flow

Name

Amount Unit PCF

Unit

GHG

Unit

PCF Share

Inflows
electricity

3512 Mwh

50 kg CO2eq/Mwh

175600 kg CO2eq

2,1%

hot water @ 65°

2000 m^3

201 kg CO2eq/Mwh

211964 kg CO2eq

2,5%

cold water @ 5°C

3000 m^3

350 kg CO2eq/Mwh

12180 kg CO2eq

0,1%

compressed air @ 10 bar

15000 Nm^3

350 kg CO2eq/Mwh

609 kg CO2eq

0,007%

lubricant refill

50 m^3

1,2 kg CO2eq/kg

905 kg CO2eq

0,01%

water refill1000 m^30,0003 kg CO2eq/kg

1 kg CO2eq

0,00001%

detergent refill

10 m^3

1,1 kg CO2eq/kg

3005 kg CO2eq

0,04%

process gas

1,6 m^324300 kg CO2eq/kg

supplied parts
railbody

Outlows

257774 kg CO2eq

3,10%662038 kg CO2eq

8,0%

48,5%

1290000 pcs

3,1 kg CO2eq/pcs

4029960 kg CO2eq

railbody machined

210000 pcs

3,2 kg CO2eq/pcs

682282 kg CO2eq

8,2%pressure reg. valve

1500000 pcs

1,3 kg CO2eq/pcs

1875000 kg CO2eq

22,6%high pressure sensor

1500000 pcs

0,3 kg CO2eq/pcs

450000 kg CO2eq

5,4%fitting

1500000 pcs

0,008 kg CO2eq/pcs

12600 kg CO2eq

0,2%sticker

1500000 pcs

0,005 kg CO2eq/pcs

7500 kg CO2eq

0,1%protective caps

9750000 pcs

0,06 kg CO2eq/pcs

594750 kg CO2eq

7,2%7652092 kg CO2eq

92,0%waste (machining chips)
rail

PCF
[kgCO2eq/pcs]

0,4

5,1

56115 kg
8314130 kg CO2eq

1500000 pcs

5,54

From the PCF Share it is obvious that the contribution of cooling water, compressed air, water, lubricant
and detergent falls under the cut-off of 1% defined as an example. The contribution from fittings andproduct stickers is very low, so that these as well can be neglected.
In case of the rail production the verifier would for example refer to data inflow “cooling water”,“compressed air”, “lubricant, water or detergent refill” or the supplier information on the PCF of stickers
and fittings to verify with evidence that its contribution is immaterial (see dotted square in Table 2).

6.3.4.2 Verification plan
The verifier shall develop a plan that describes the verification activities and schedule. The verification plan should
include the following verification steps: Testing of design and effectiveness of controls, substantial/sample testingof the data sources, verification of PCF system model(s), testing of IT-controls (if tools are used), estimate testing
and analytical testing (if applicable).
During the strategic analysis and risk assessment the relevant data inflows are identified. The verifier shall test
samples for all relevant data inflows identified. Table 3 gives an overview on verification techniques with related
verification activities.

26Version 1.0
Table 3: Verification techniques
Verification step

Verification activities

Number of samples

1. Testing of control
design Review process description for PCF creation or risk
control matrix (RCM, if available) and evaluate
whether control design is appropriate(controls like 4-eyes-principle are in place to assurethat PCF data is correct).
 Interviews with control owners

n/a, Process description or
RCM

2. Testing ofeffectiveness Review of effectiveness of controls over thereference time period under review.

see table controls
testing (Table 5)

3. Substantive testingof data sources Testing of samples for all relevant data inflows

see table substantive
testing (Table 6) for eachrelevant data source

4. Testing of PCF
system model Testing of calculation logic / rules / results
 Connection with emission factors,
 Review of emission factors (source).

5. Testing of ITControls(if tools are used) Testing of IT controls to assure reliability and security 1 for each IT controlof the data.
1 for major data inflow

6. Estimation testing(if applicable)

 Review of estimation methods.

1 sample for each relevant
data inflow

In the following the example of an in-depth (reasonable assurance) testing for the Diesel Rail production
is shown, where 95% coverage of the PCF is required. The verifier shall randomly select inflows to reacha coverage of 95% and define the number of samples for the selected inflows (Table 4).

Table 4: Examples of randomly selected inflows to meet 95% PCF coverage.
A
Flow NameB
PCF cummulated
Share
PCF share

Flow Name

Infows

PCF cummulated
Share
PCF share

Infowssupplied parts

supplied parts

railbody

48,5%

48,5%

railbody

48,5%

48,5%

pressure regulating valve

22,6%

71,0%

pressure regulating valve

22,6%

71,0%

railbody machined

8,2%

79,2%

railbody machined

8,2%

79,2%

protective caps

7,2%

86,4%

protective caps

7,2%

86,4%

high pressure sensor

5,4%

91,8%

high pressure sensor

5,4%

91,8%

3,1%

94,9%

hot water @ 65°

2,5%

94,3%

electricity

2,1%

96,5%

process gas
hot water @ 65°

2,5%

97,4%

or

27

Version 1.0

6.3.4.3 Testing of Design & Effectiveness of controls
The verification shall include the evaluation of the control design for the PCF calculation. In addition, the verifier
shall test the effectiveness of these controls. From the description of controls (e.g. Risk Control Matrix, RCM) theverifier shall derive testing steps to verify the operating effectiveness of controls. If controls are not performed as
expected and deviations are detected, the verifier shall assess the impact on the PCF result and assess if additionalverification steps are required and additional evidence needs to be evaluated. If automated controls are in place one
sample (test of one) is sufficient. For regular (limited assurance) verification test of one is sufficient.
For in-depth (reasonable assurance) verification the number of samples shall be defined according to the following
Table 5 and the samples shall be tested against the control description.
Table 5: Number of samples for control testing per year
Frequency of performance ofcontrol

RegularNumber of Items to Test

In-depth
Number of Items to Test

Multiple times per day
Daily
WeeklyMonthly
Quarterly
Annually

1
1
1
1
1
1

60
40
15
2
2
1

In the above example of a Diesel rail production and the selected inflows according to Table 4 A all
supplied parts come with a verified PCF statement from the supplier in an automated manner. A test of
one is sufficient for each of the supplied parts. Process gases are recorded manually on a weekly basis
and crosschecked once per month. According to these controls two monthly records are randomly
chosen and checked.

6.3.4.4 Substantive testing
In the next step the verifier analyses data and other evidence used in the PCF system model. Typical evidence to begathered are the Bill of Material (BOM), invoices of energy used, auxiliary materials, and raw parts, as well as
measured primary data and the measurement techniques behind it. Out of the population of evidence (e.g. list of
meter readings) the verifier shall select random samples based on the following table (Table 6):
Table 6: Number of samples for substantive testing
RegularPopulation

In-depth

Number of
Items to test
(0 Errors accepted)

Number of
Items to test
(1 Error accepted)

Number of
Items to test
(0 Errors accepted)

Number of
Items to test
(1 Error accepted)>200 items in the population

40

70

55

85

Between 100 and 199 items

20

-

30

-

Between 50 and 99 items

10

-

15

-

Between 20 and 49 items

3

-

5

-

Fewer than 20 items

1

-

2

-

28

Version 1.0
In the above example of a Diesel rail production the electronical recording of hot water provides 35040
data points per year. According to Table 6, for an in-depth verification, 55 items shall be tested with noerror or alternatively 85 tests with one error.

6.3.4.5 Testing of PCF system model
The system model documentation will be checked for compliance with the framework. In case of flexible systemmodels the application to the respective production is part of the testing. Besides the calculation rules and allocation
logic the correct linking of input values on activity data to the respective electronic data acquisition or data storage
is checked. The correct choice of emission data for the respective flows concludes the PCF system model testing. To
test if the calculation is performed in the software in line with the rulebooks the verifier shall trace the calculation
process.

6.3.4.6 Testing of IT controls
If a software is used by the client to calculate PCFs, the software should be part of the verifier´s evaluation. Testing
the software once, enables future verifications to be processed significantly faster. Testing of IT Controls shall include
review of the following:






Data Center and network operations (Business Continuity, Back-ups)
System software acquisition, change, maintenance
Program change (Control over changes)
Access security (Access controls)
Application system acquisition, development, maintenanceAn extensive guidance for the testing of IT Controls is provided in Appendix 6 of ISA 315:2019.

6.3.4.7 Estimation testing
If in the risk assessment it was evaluated that estimated values have a relevant impact on the PCF result the verifier
shall evaluate if the estimation methodologies are appropriate, assumptions are applicable, and the quality of thedata used in the estimation is sufficient. The verifier shall further assess whether the methods for making estimations
have been applied consistently from prior reference periods or have been changed, if applicable.

6.3.4.8 Analytical testing
Analytical procedures may be used at all stages of the verification. They may include checks on mass/energy balance,
number of parts, benchmark checks and checks of the cut-off sensitivity analysis. If fluctuations or relationships thatare inconsistent with other relevant information are identified or that differ significantly from expectations, theverifier shall obtain additional evidence or clarification.

6.3.4.9 Testing for secondary data
The verifier shall check if the secondary data used is taken from secondary databases whitelisted in the respective
rulebooks. The verifier shall also assess whether the appropriate dataset in the whitelisted secondary database has
been selected (e.g., taking into account representativeness of geography and technology). The appropriate selectionof secondary data can only be verified if the scope is controlled and well defined. In case that for the dataset underquestion also a primary supplier-provided dataset is available, the selection of a secondary dataset shall be justified,shall be in line with the respective rulebook and shall be subject to the assessment of the verifier.

6.3.4.10 Site visits
The verification is performed remotely. Under the following circumstances on-site visits are recommended:29

Version 1.0
 Major misstatements are identified during the verification that can be clarified through a visit of thesite/-s or facility/-ies, Transparency of the documentation on either value stream or data management is insufficient and can beclarified through a visit of the site/-s or facility/-ies.
When performing a site visit the verifier should share an inspection list before the visit.

6.3.4.11 Document request list
Based on the information obtained in the initial interview(s) as well as the results of the strategic analysis and therisk assessment the verifier will create the document request list for the verification of the PCF dataset(s).
As guidance Table 7 can be used and adapted based on the specific situation and input factors for the PCF datasets(s),which will be verified.
Table 7: Items for documentation and corresponding evidence
Items for documentation

Evidence documents

Description of production process

Floor plan, value stream chart, chemical reaction sheet,process flow diagram, utility summary, mass balance sheet
Floor plan, process sheet, chemical reactions overview

System boundaries
Control system
Logistic process
Inflows: e.g.
 Electricity,





Gas,
Fuel,
Materials,...

Process description of controls, (control points, 4-eyes-principle,
RCM (Risk Control Matrix))
Invoice, delivery note, allocation
 Meter readings, invoices, allocation plan, overview ofconsumption, invoices, PPA, EACs, VPPA, Green Tarif
Agreements,
 Overview of consumption, meter readings, invoices, ...
 Overview of consumption, meter readings, invoices, ...
 Bill of materials,
 …

Outflows

Meter readings, invoices, allotment plan

Meter points/sampling rates

Installation plan

PCF system model

Description of calculation logic,
Description and documentation of IT controls of the software
Data flow chart, including a list of requested and received PCF
datasets from suppliers
Data table, e.g. emission factors etc.

Data traces
Parameters

The above evidence documents shall correspond to the physical system boundary. In case the inflows / outflows
cannot be derived directly from bill of materials, meters or other evidence documents the applied allotment shallbe documented and justified.
The verifier shall announce the start of the verification at least two weeks in advance and provide the verification
plan and document request list to the client. According to the list the client will prepare the required documents.

6.3.4.12 Verified upstream PCF datasets
There is no need to perform repeated verification activities on upstream PCF datasets that are already 3rd party
verified according to rulebook requirements. The PCF results shall be used as input in a clients’ cradle-to-gate PCF
calculation without additional checks on their confidence level.
30

Version 1.0

6.3.5 Cascading verification
In Figure 2 the self-similar character of verification was briefly discussed, where verification is requested by acompany A for its operations, the full verification coverage of PCF data can only be achieved, if verification is also
provided for all the tier levels upstream of company A.
It cannot be assumed that the first companies upstream in a supply chain are the first ones to have their operations
verified. Consequently, companies will face a situation, where verification is sought on the basis of partiallyunverified input data.
In the interest of widely verified PCF data verification should be possible without the prerequisite of a fully verified
upstream supply chain. As such the situation is similar to the goal of primary data based PCFs even if primary data
will not be available in the short term from all companies in the supply chain. The concept to address partiallyunverified upstream data follows the concept of the primary data share (see CX-PCF Rulebook V3). The 3rd party
Product Verification Share (3PVS) is introduced as the share of PCF that can be attested by verified data.

3𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =|𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 [𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂2 𝑒𝑒]|
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 [𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂2 𝑒𝑒]

3𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =∑𝑖𝑖 ��𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡,𝑖𝑖 � ⋅ 3𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 �∑𝑖𝑖 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑖𝑖

The concept is illustrated in Figure 7 and the calculations is summarized in Table 8.

31

Version 1.0

Figure 7: Concept of Product Verification Share
The supply chain of product A1 is depicted. Transport emissions are neglected for simplicity. The products E1 and C1
are verified in depth thus the 3PVS is 95%. With product B1 the situation is different. In B1 supplied parts C1 (twoparts) and part D1 are assembled. For B1 100 kgCO2eq stemming from C1 and 15kg CO2eq due to the own operations
are verified in depth. The D1 contribution comes unverified. Thus 109,25 out of 130 kg CO2eq or 84% of the upstream
emissions are verified. For company A 109,25 kgCO2eq or 84% of the upstream emissions are verified. 25kg fromtheir own operations are also verified in depth. In total 132,95 out of 155 kgCO2eq (i.e. 86%) are verified. Note thatthe 3PVS can also increase from Tier n-1 to Tier n.
For Company A and B a regular verification can be achieved, an in-depth verification is not possible as in both cases
the product verification share is less than 95%.
A high verification share will not guarantee that the true carbon emissions associated with the product are quantified
within specified, narrow error margin. Even if evidence on all input data for a PCF result is available, a guaranteed
error margin could only be assured if a complete check of all data would be performed.

32

Version 1.0

Table 8: Calculation scheme for Figure 7
Inboundparts

Inbound-PCF

Own
Operations

OutboundPCF

Verification
G2G

E1
C1
D1

[-]
3 E1
-

kgCO2
3x10=30
-

kgCO2
10
20
15

kgCO2
10
50
15

[-]
in depthin depthnone

B1

2 C1 & D1

2x50+15=115

15

130

in depth

A1

B1

130

25

155

in depth

Production

3PVS
[%]
95
95
0
(2*50*95+15*0+15*95)/130 = 84,04-> 84 .
(130*84+25*95)/155 = 85,77-> 86 .

Table 9 shows the impact of a different verification type at company C. With C1 entering at 85% 3PVS into thecalculation the verification share for A1 drops to 79%. This would not allow for a limited assurance as defined in
6.3.3.1. Still the 3PVS indicates that a high level of trust is justified in the PCF of product A1. From this example theconclusion can be drawn that for company A it would be more effective to motivate company C for an in depth
verification than persuade company D into any verification. Please be aware that cascading 3rd party verification
requires an unbroken chain of verification. A verifier of company A in our example from Figure 7 will not issue a
positive verification statement including the PCF contributions from company B, if company B has not provided a 3rdparty verified PCF dataset. The 3PVS shall be set to zero in that case.
Table 9: Exemplary calculation for C1 with “regular” verification

E1
C1
D1

Inbound
parts
[-]
3 E1
-

B1

2 C1 & D1

2x50+15=115

15

130

in depth

A1

B1

130

25

155

in depth

Production

kgCO2
3x10=30-

Own
Operations
kgCO2
10
20
15

OutboundPCF
kgCO2
10
50
15

Verification
G2G[-]
in depth
regularnone

Inbound-PCF

3PVS
[%]
95
85
0
(2*50*85+15*0+15*95)/130 = 76,34-> 76 .
(130*76+25*95)/155 = 79,06-> 79 .

Verification thus provides a statement on the probability that a PCF can be considered correct, but not on themagnitude of a possible error. Obviously, verification puts a focus on inputs of highest impact on the PCF result. The
error for an ‘in depth’-verification is likely smaller than in a ‘regular’-verification.
Since verification is based on sample checks rather than full data checks, it does not make a difference if the origin
of not checked data is located within the company’s own operations or somewhere in the upstream supply chain.
The relevant information is what portion of the PCF result was or can be subject to verification. This is precisely themeaning of the 3PVS.
As for the PDS the 3PVS results from the multiplication of the verification status of activity data and emission factors.
The following example illustrates the situation.

33

Version 1.0

Primary/Secondary

3PVSi

Product
PCF
PDS
3PVS

3PVS

Tier n-1
InflowPrimary/Secondary

Product
PCF
PDS
3PVS

Verified

Tier nInflowPrimary/Secondary

Table 10: Example for the multiplicative nature of 3PVS

Excavation
Electricity
Fuel (Diesel)
Ore
Ore
Ore
Ore

2000 kg
500 kWh
100 ltr1000
0,663 kg CO2 eq/ kg
60% 100% -

1
1
1

1
1
1

0 kg CO2 eq/ kg
Tier n0,8 kg CO2 eq/ kWh Service Provider
2,63 kg CO2 eq/ ltr
SD Whitelist

1
1
0

1
1
1

0 kg CO2 eq
400 kg CO2 eq
263 kg CO2 eq

1
1
0

1
1
1

Ore
Electricity
Coal
Limestone
Scrap
Iron-Billets
Iron-Billets
Iron-Billets
Iron-Billets

1000 kg
500 kWh500 kg1000 kg
300 kg1300
2,59 kg CO2 eq/ kg
24% 68% -

1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1

0,663 kg CO2 eq/ kg
0,8 kg CO2 eq/ kWh
3,1 kg CO2 eq/ kg
0,6 kg CO2 eq/ kg
0,5 kg CO2 eq/ kg

1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1 0,5

663 kg CO2 eq
400 kg CO2 eq1550 kg CO2 eq
600 kg CO2 eq
150 kg CO2 eq

1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1 0,5

Activity

Activity UnitEFEF Unit

EF origin

Tier nGuess
SD Whitelist
Guess
Recycler

Emissions Emission Unit

One precondition to verify PCF results partially based on secondary data is, that secondary data can be traced to awhitelisted data source. In addition, the verifier shall assess the appropriate secondary data set selection. It is notnecessary to differentiate between the verification of primary and secondary data.
In case no 3PVS is provided with a PCF data set, the company making use of that PCF data set has to account a 3PVS
with the default value “0” for that PCF data set. A 3PVS value of “0” can therefore mean that a PCF verification was
not successful, that information on any verification of the 3PCF data set is missing or that no verification wasundertaken.
The description of cascading verification in the preceding section deals exclusively with 3rd party verification theconcept however is fully transferable to 1st and 2nd party verification as introduced in section 6.3.3.1. Theseverification types are non-interchangeable, i.e. a 1st party verified PCF shall not count into a 3rd party verification.
Besides the product verification share 3PVS for 3rd party verification therefore a 1st Party Verification Share (1PVS)
and a 2nd Party Verification Share (2PVS) is introduced to allow the cascading of these verification types. 1PVS and
2PVS are calculated and handled in full analogy to the 3PVS, except for the need of an unbroken chain of verification.
Find the respective definitions for 1PVS and 2PVS in Annex A 3.

6.3.6 Execution
6.3.6.1 Performing the verification plan
During the verification process, the verifier shall follow the defined verification plan. The verifier shall collectevidence according to the techniques described in Table 3.
If the confidence level is downgraded during execution, the verification plan shall be modified.
After the evidence is collected, the verifier shall evaluate and document:
1.
2.

Any material misstatement of the original content as well as of any changes made to the PCF program
documentation during the verification,
whether the evidence is complete, consistent, accurate, comparable, and transparent, and assess any
nonconformity with the defined criteria.

34

Version 1.0
The verification process shall be documented in such a way that a competent verifier who has not been involved in
the verification can form an opinion on the conduct of the verification within a reasonable period of time. To thisend, the verifier shall document the planning, the verification procedures, the non-conformities, and the derivationof the opinion in the working papers. The working papers shall be archived.

6.3.6.2 Feedback loops
If the verifier is not in the position to form a final opinion on the verification result, he will create an updated, written
document request list of missing documentation and/or a list of non-conformities identified. Depending on thecomplexity of the verification, the verifier will set a deadline to provide the missing documents and/or correct/clarify
the open issues. The document request or non-conformity list and corrected documents shall be retained anddocumented by the verifier. If the requested evidence is inconclusive, the verifier may initiate an on-site verification.
This standard allows two feedback loops to correct open issues. If both feedback loops do not succeed in correcting
all non-conformities, the verifier has the right to issue a negative opinion. In this case there is no verification
statement issued.
A feedback loop is defined as asking formally via a request list for corrections of non-conformities after a sunset
date. Continued communication between verifier and client is not considered a feedback loop.

6.3.7 Documentation
It is required to keep the following documents:
 verification report,
 verification statement.
It is recommended to keep the following documents:






contract incl. agreed-upon terms, scope and criteria of verification,verification plan,
evidence request list,
evaluated evidence,list with found and corrected non-conformities.

6.3.8 Reporting
6.3.8.1 Drafting the Verification report
The verifier shall draft the verification report including an opinion, which serves as documented proof of the PCF
verification process. The use-case for the verification report is to inform the client about the verification outcomes.
The verifier shall document all performed verification activities (e.g. sample selection, recalculation, samplingtechniques, analytical procedures). The documentation shall be archived for at least 10 years.
The verification report shall contain the following minimum information:
The subject matter,a client identification,a verifier identification,
type of verification (limited assurance and reasonable assurance, see 6.3.3.1),
the verification procedures to assess the PCF program documentation of the subject matter,the verification results either in a: Positive opinion, this means that the evidence collected is sufficient and the criteria are applied appropriately, negative opinion, this means that the verifier was not able to obtain sufficient evidence,
 supplementary remarks to explain the verification results,
 the date of the report,
 the verifier’s signature.








35

Version 1.0
An independent internal quality review at the verifier shall be completed before the verification report is sent to theclient. The quality review should ensure a consistent verification result. The independent quality reviewer checks
the verification draft report and supporting documents (e.g. completed verification plan, documentation of thetested samples). Once the quality review is complete and positive, the verification report is released, and theverification statement will be issued.

6.3.8.2 Verification Statement
The verification statement constitutes the link between the PCF dataset and the completed verification process. It
indicates that the PCF dataset attributes have been verified according to a specific verification type. The verifier
issues the verification statement to the client. The client can present the verification statement to the receiver of
the PCF dataset (customer) with the intention to create trust in the PCF dataset. Hence, the verification statement
can complement the exchange of PCF datasets.
To foster wide adoption of verification practice in industry the issuance of verification statements shall fulfill themain principles of trustworthiness:
 Assignment of the verification statement to the PCF dataset must be unique.
 Verification type covers all attributes of the exchanged PCF dataset, except for customer-specific information
which is not required to be verified and therefore not disclosed in the verification statement (e.g. specificproduct IDs of different customers).
 Manipulation of any further PCF dataset content after verification shall be impossible.
 Independent assessment of the verification statement by the customer shall be possible.
 Trust technologies shall be in place allowing the customer
1. to technically verify the validity of the verification statement(i.e. statement has not been revoked by verifier),
2. to technically verify the unique assignment of the verification statement to the received PCF dataset(i.e. content of the statement matches the PCF information).
Exchange of verification statements at large scale should be enabled by suitable ‘digital’/machine-readable
solutions.
It is outside the scope of this document to prescribe a specific trust technology for the management of verification
statements. Generally, trust technologies shall fulfill the guiding principles above, thereby enabling independent
assessment of the verification statement by the customer. For illustration, a possible (conventional) mechanism forexchanging verification statements between verifier, client and customer including an optional storage functionality
is depicted in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Exchange of verification statement using direct routes or indirect routes (via access to storage)
An example for a trust technology enabling a digitally signed verification statement with revocation functionality by
the verifier is the ‘verifiable credential’ mechanism (see adapted schema in Figure 9). Here, the verifier uses asoftware to issue the verification statement as credential to the client. At the same time a key for identifying theauthenticity of the credential is stored in a public registry. The client remains the holder of the digital credential. The
verifier has the ability to revoke the credential. The client presents proofs of the credential to any customer (proofs

36Version 1.0
meaning digital copies, not the original credential, which is uniquely held by the client). To ensure that the presented
proof is valid, the customer uses software to verify the proof against information stored in the public registry. In
contrast to managing verification statements separately from the PCF dataset, verifiable credentials allow for
combining both parts into one digitally signed dataset, meaning when exchanging a PCF with a customer, it is alreadycombined with statement, i.e. the credential is dataset and verification statement at the same time.

Figure 9: Mechanism of verifiable credentials used for PCF exchange (adapted from W3C Recommendation 2022)
The verification statement shall include:







verification statement identifier,verifier identification,
name of verifying person,
PCF dataset,
issue date,verifier’s digital signature,

The PCF dataset does not need to provide the full content of the verification statement but shall provide:






verification statement identifier,certification statement identifier (see chapter 6.2.3),
PCF program certification share (PCS, see chapter 6.2.3),
product verification shares (1PVS, 2PVS & 3PVS, see chapter 6.3.4.12),
verification type (see chapter 6.3.3.1)

In case of a 2nd party verification verifier identification and the name of the verifying person shall be anonymized or
blacked out for the customer.
In the PCF Data Model currently published such verification related attributes are not included yet, but the PCFVerification working group will suggest amendments for the PCF Data Model after the consultation of this document.

6.3.9 Re-Verification
In case of a re-verification three spot checks shall provide evidence that no changes relative to the PCF program
documentation need to be considered. Analogue to the initial verification a new set of samples shall be drawn andevaluated. This process could be supported by automated sampling and checks.

6.3.10 Competence requirements for a verifier
The competence requirements shall be fulfilled by one verifier or by a verifier team. These competences shall be
documented and be proven through education, training, or work experience. The appointment process will behandled by Catena-X and TFS outside of this document.
First, second, and third-party verifiers need to fulfill the competence requirements below.

37

Version 1.0
The competence requirements of ISO 14066:2023 chapter 4-7 shall be adhered to. Additionally, the verifier shallhave knowledge about and experience with:
PCF calculation processes according to the rulebooks and underlying standards,
The assurance levels (regular & in-depth) as defined in this framework,
GHG emission factor sources,
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and/or Product Carbon Footprinting (PCF),
PCF verification processes according to this rulebook containing but not limited to: Strategy analysis, Risk
assessment, verification planning and documentation, review procedures to ensure quality, Concept of materiality,
 Sector/industry/product specifics like typical production processes, monitoring techniques, typical internal
control systems, applicable assumptions, best practice, GHG emissions, Modelling software or automated calculation solutions.







6.4 Validation
Beside reporting PFC datasets for products that were already produced, product carbon footprints are also relevant
for products still in development or not yet produced. In both situations PCF target values are defined and an
estimate of the future PCF based upon the current design or sample stage is an important KPI to monitor and manage
target achievement. Consequently, the estimated or predicted PCF of supplied parts is important during theacquisition process and for purchase decisions.
There can be no proof of a PCF result of parts not yet produced, but still trust in the communicated predicted PCF
can be promoted by a 3rd party validation.
In a validation – contrary to a verification – the reviewing party shall check assumptions based on which the PCF wasquantified.
Assumptions refer to data such as future residual grid mixes or future technology implications and may be includedin the projection of a PCF. Assumptions shall be documented for a validation process. Two situations for futureoriented PCFs are to be distinguished: Projection of PCFs for existing products into the future: Reflecting changes in material source, sourcing ofpurchased parts, technology, tooling, energy mix etc..
 Prediction of PCFs for new product developments not in serial production yet: On top of the above aspects
reflecting on preliminary sample stage (build and buy decisions) and/or production planning (production
processes, volumes, locations).
Validation guidelines will be added to this document as soon as requirements on future-oriented (predicted) PCF
calculations are defined in future versions of the rulebooks.

38Version 1.0

7. Annexes
A 1. PCF Data Model (excerpt)
Catena-X PCF Data model: https://github.com/eclipse-tractusx/sldt-semanticmodels/blob/main/io.catenax.pcf/4.0.1/gen/Pcf.html
TFS data model: https://www.tfs-initiative.com/app/uploads/2024/02/TfS-Data-Model-February-2024.pdf
Please check for potentially newer version of PCF data models published by Catena-X or TFS.
For TFS available at https://www.tfs-initiative.com/how-we-do-it/scope-3-ghg-emissions---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PCF (Product Carbon Footprint) Entity
Entity for defining a PCF (Product Carbon Footprint) as specified in the Catena-X PCF Rulebook in accordance withthe technical specifications for PCF Data Exchange (Version 2.0.0) from the WBCSD (World Business Council for
Sustainable Development)/ PACT initiative. Optional in Catena-X for example, can be calculated by application.
Reference:https://wbcsd.github.io/tr/2023/data-exchange-protocol-20230221/

Properties
Unit of measurement
Unit of analysis of a product in context of the PCF (product carbon footprint) as specified in the Catena-X PCF
Rulebook in accordance with the technical specifications for PCF Data Exchange (Version 2.0.0) from the WBCSD(World Business Council for Sustainable Development)/ PACT initiative. In Catena-X for example list of valid units
includes "piece".
NamedeclaredUnit

Characteristic

Enumeration

Value

liter
kilogram
cubic meter
kilowatt hourmegajouleton kilometersquare meter
piece

Referencehttps://wbcsd.github.io/tr/2023/data-exchange-protocol-20230221/

Typ

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Examplekilogram

Optional

No

In Payload

Yes

Payload key

declaredUnit

Referencehttps://wbcsd.github.io/tr/2023/data-exchange-protocol-20230221/----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39

Version 1.0

A 2. Scope of Verification for Logistics (Normative Annex)
A special case regarding system boundaries can be logistics as the rulebooks state inbound logistics as part of the
PCF and outbound logistics have to be reported separately but are also subject to verification. There are several
possible cases, illustrated in Figure 10, to verify logistics as part of a PCF:
1.
2.
3.
4.

In the simplest scenario no additional verification shall be done as the client is not responsible forcontracting the inbound or outbound logistics. The verified value for the inbound logistics shall be provided
by the supplier.
The client as company seeking verification for the PCF of its products is also contracting the inbound logistics
and therefore is responsible to provide evidence for the verification.
The client as company seeking verification for the PCF of its products is only contracting the outboundlogistics and therefore is responsible to provide evidence for the verification.
The client as company seeking verification for the PCF of its products is contracting both inbound andoutbound logistics and therefore is responsible to provide evidence for the verification of both parts.

Figure 10: In- & outbound transport PCFs including verification
In case the incoterm agreed by the parties reflect a shared responsibility for the transport, the verification of thetransport may also be split according to the responsibility of the different parties, if contracted separately. If,
however, only one party organizes and contracts the transport with such incoterm with a transport provider, theresponsibility to provide the transport PCF including verification rests with the contracting party as only this party
has an agreement with the transport provider and can request and receive such data. A common example is theagreement of an incoterm such as FOB (Free On Board) or CIF (Cost Insurance Freight) with the supplier organizing
and contracting the full transport with a transport provider and charging the client its part of the transport cost.
Also, special cases (see Figure 11) as described in the rulebooks for cases such as distribution centers or (external)
warehouses have to be considered for responsibility of PCF verification.

40

Version 1.0

Figure 11: Examples for special logistics cases

A 3. Calculation example of PCS
Note, the PCSi can only assume the value of 0% or 100%:
Either the PCF was calculated using a certified program or not.

Figure 12: Concept of Program Certification Share41

Version 1.0
Table 11: Calculation scheme for Figure 12

E1

PCFProgram
certified
[%]
100

C1

0

3 E1

3x10=30

20

50

D1

0

-

-

15

15

B1

100

15

130

A1

100

25

155

Production

Inboundparts

InboundPCF

Own
Operations

OutboundPCF

[-]
-

kgCO2
-

kgCO2
10

kgCO2
10

2 C1 & D1 2x50+15=115
B1

130

PCS
[%]
100
(3*10*100+0*20)/50 = 60-> 60
0(2*50*60+15*0+15*100)/130 = 57,69-> 58 .
(130*58+25*100)/155 = 64,77-> 65 .

Production E1, at the beginning of the supply-chain has an active certificate for its PCF program, the PCS is 100%.
Production E1 is used as an input for production C1, which does not have an active certificate of its PCF program,meaning the PCS for C1 drops to 60%. At production B1, with an active certificate for 15 kgCO2eq of their own
operations, 100 kgCO2eq from a partially certified supply and 15kg from an again uncertified supplier, the resulting
PCS amounts to 58%. This is taken as the only input of production A1 which adds 25 kgCO2eq from their production
which is covered in a certified program. Thus, the total PCS increases to 65%.

A 4. Definition formula for 1PVS and 2PVS
1PVS:
1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =2PVS:|𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 [𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂2 𝑒𝑒]|
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 [𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂2 𝑒𝑒]

1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =2𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =∑𝑖𝑖 ��𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡,𝑖𝑖 � ⋅ 1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 �∑𝑖𝑖 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑖𝑖|𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 [𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂2 𝑒𝑒]|
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 [𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂2 𝑒𝑒]

2𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =∑𝑖𝑖 ��𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡,𝑖𝑖 � ⋅ 2𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 �∑𝑖𝑖 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑖𝑖

42Version 1.0

A 5. Main contributing companies from Catena-X and Together for Sustainability















BASF SEBMW Group AG
Deloitte Deutschland GmbHDENSO Automotive Deutschland GmbHs
Evonik Industries AG
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA
PwC GmbH WPG
Renault Group
Robert Bosch GmbH
Siemens AG
Sika Technology AG
Thyssenkrupp Materials Services GmbHTÜV SÜD Auto Service GmbH
Valeo S.A.

43