# Emissions Management Software Evaluation Checklist

Use this worksheet to define requirements, run consistent vendor demos, and score platforms against your emissions program. From the Validere 2026 Buyer's Guide.

## 1. Define your primary use case

Check all that apply. Your top priority should determine which platform type you evaluate first.

- Corporate GHG inventory (Scope 1, 2, 3 disclosure)
- Air emissions compliance (facility-level reporting)
- Methane & measurement programs
- Supply chain / Scope 3 data
- Multi-site manufacturing standardization
- Reduction & capital planning / forecasting
- EPA GHGRP reporting
- State air permit reporting

**Primary platform type to evaluate:**

- Carbon accounting software
- Industrial EMS / EHS software
- Operational emissions management
- Hybrid architecture (multiple platforms)

## 2. Seven requirements questions

Answer before scheduling demos. Bring these answers to every vendor conversation.

1. Which emissions programs must the platform support?

2. At what granularity must emissions be managed?
   - Corporate · Facility · Source · Event

3. Where does source data live today?
   - Systems · Owners · Update frequency · Known quality issues

4. How often do methodologies and regulatory requirements change?

5. Which review, approval, and investigation workflows must the system support?

---

6. Do production or capital decisions require emissions forecasting?

7. How should the platform fit your existing technology environment?
   - ERP · EHS · Historians · Monitoring · Data warehouse

---

## 3. Demo script — run this with every vendor

Request a demonstration using your asset structure. Do not accept a generic sustainability dashboard tour.

### Step 1: Missing source record
Show what happens when a production or activity record is missing. How is the exception flagged, assigned, and resolved?

Notes: _______________________________________________________________

### Step 2: Methodology or factor change mid-year
Edit a calculation methodology or emissions factor. Show version history and whether prior periods are preserved.

Notes: _______________________________________________________________

### Step 3: Measurement event requiring investigation
Walk through an observation from detection to investigation, response, documentation, and inventory update.

Notes: _______________________________________________________________

### Step 4: Drill-down audit trail
Start from a reported value. How quickly can you reach source data, methodology, factors, and approvals?

Notes: _______________________________________________________________

### Step 5: Multiple reporting outputs
Can one governed dataset support two different reporting outputs without duplicate manual entry?

Notes: _______________________________________________________________

## 4. Capability scoring matrix

Score each vendor 1–5 (1 = poor fit, 5 = strong fit). Use the same scores across all candidates.

| Capability                       | What good looks like                                                                                            | Score | Notes |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|
| Data integration                 | Connects to your historian/ERP; preserves asset hierarchy; traceable updates                                   |       |       |
| Calculations                     | Configurable methods; version history; drill-down to factors without custom dev                               |       |       |
| QA/QC & exceptions               | Exception queue; manage by exception; not a dashboard hiding open issues                                      |       |       |
| Facility visibility              | Facility total → source → activity data quickly                                                               |       |       |
| Regulatory reporting             | Multiple outputs from one governed dataset; configurable per program                                          |       |       |
| Audit trails                     | Full lineage from report to source; approvals in-system                                                      |       |       |
| Workflows                        | Reviews, assignments, escalations — not email-only                                                            |       |       |
| Measurement response             | Observation → investigation → closure → inventory update                                                      |       |       |
| Forecasting                      | Scenarios tied to production, assets, capital — not only % targets                                            |       |       |
| Governance & permissions         | Facility-level access; role-based review responsibilities                                                       |       |       |

## VENDOR COMPARISON SUMMARY

| Vendor | Platform type          | Total score(/50) | Top strength | Top concern |
|--------|-----------------------|-----------------|--------------|--------------|
|        |                       |                 |              |              |
|        |                       |                 |              |              |
|        |                       |                 |              |              |

## 5. Red flags — check any you observed

- Demo used only sanitized sample data
- Cannot show calculation lineage to source data
- Every methodology change requires a custom development project
- Reporting module disconnected from source data
- Validation only possible after export to Excel
- No facility-level permissions or data ownership model
- Measurement data stored but not tied to investigation workflow
- Forecasting limited to corporate reduction glide paths