Verified SDG contributions vs. self-claimed

Not all that glitters is gold. Current standards may paint a misleading picture of carbon projects’ social and environmental benefits, equating self-claimed contributions to the SDGs with monitored, reported and verified efforts. In this blog post, we help you distinguish verified impact from unsubstantiated claims and explain the importance of proper SDG monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV).

As we’ve explored in previous blog posts, carbon projects offer much more than just the potential for greenhouse gas reduction and climate change mitigation. They also contribute to healthier ecosystems and stronger communities through the delivery of social, economic and environmental benefits—often categorized and reported as contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

At Calyx Global, we consider these beyond carbon benefits to be one of the three key pillars of high-quality carbon projects. To assess the quality of SDG claims, we have developed an SDG rating framework. Our process requires verification by a third-party auditor and rewards thorough monitoring and reporting with higher ratings. 

Proper monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) processes for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are essential to ensure that benefits beyond carbon are part of the project and that the claimed benefits are real, measurable, and impactful. One example of such a process to report beyond carbon contributions is provided by Verra’s Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and the Sustainable Development Verified Impact Standard (SD VISta). Both frameworks are additional certifications that carbon project developers seek and invest in to provide buyers a third-party confirmation of their projects’ impacts on sustainable development.

Despite the importance of MRV, there are notable discrepancies with different carbon crediting standards when it comes to reporting and verifying requirements. In this blog post, we analyze and compare the MRV requirements of leading SDG certification standards, namely the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), Gold Standard for the Global Goals (GS4GG), Climate Action Reserve (CAR), and the American Carbon Registry (ACR). We highlight the main differences and gaps and propose initial recommendations for achieving greater consistency and reliability in SDG impact measurement across the carbon market. The following table summarizes our findings.

Overview of MRV requirements for SDG contributions:

Some conclusions we can draw from the above table and from our analysis:

SDG claims vary in their reliability. SDG claims or labels are often attached to projects regardless of whether they are self-claimed or have undergone proper MRV. This practice undermines the efforts of projects that have invested in rigorous verification processes, creating confusion and diminishing the credibility of genuine contributions. Consistent and mandatory labeling practices ensure that all projects highlight their positive impacts on the SDGs, making it easier for buyers to identify and support projects with verified sustainable development benefits.

Not all carbon crediting programs require quantitative SDG monitoring and reporting of the SDG claims. Regular and mandatory updates on the progress of SDGs along with quantitative metrics on the impacts are crucial, as they help maintain transparency and accountability, ensuring that the claimed benefits are real and measurable.

Lack of mandatory verification affects the reliability of SDG claims. Independent third-party auditing is essential for credibility and ensuring the accuracy of reported impacts. Independent verification helps confirm the project's contributions to SDGs and enhances stakeholder trust.

Standards vary with regard to incentivizing SDG impact. GS4GG and VCS require identifying at least three SDGs the project contributes to, promoting a structured approach to aligning projects with sustainable development goals. These minimum requirements help incentivize projects to demonstrate a broader sustainability impact. By contrast, ACR and CAR provide more flexibility; however, these standards originated in, and specifically for, projects in the United States, which may explain the difference. However, more recently, both are expanding credit issuance outside the U.S. 

The role of rating agencies

As a carbon credit rating agency, our role is to provide independent assessments, not to enforce carbon standard guidelines or verify project developer claims. However, we believe it is our responsibility to provide comparative analyses of SDG impacts for buyers, and to advocate for more rigorous and standardized SDG monitoring, reporting and verification requirements and practices for the improvement of the voluntary carbon market (VCM) as a whole.

We acknowledge that SDG reporting can be costly and there is still a lack of guidance both for project developers and Validation and Verification Bodies (VVBs). We also note that some standards for SDG claims are weak, leading to unsubstantiated claims, which negatively impacts projects and the VCM. A lack of clarity and standardization amongst GHG claims has already shaken buyer confidence. While we see efforts to improve greenhouse gas claims, it is in stakeholders' and society’s best interest to lift all aspects of quality. We hope to see similar efforts to ensure that every contribution has the impact claimed.

Citations and Notes

[1] VCS Monitoring Report Template, v4.4 
[2] https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/standards/TGuide-PerfCert_V1.1-Monitoring-Report.pdf
[3] VCS Validation Report Template, v4.4
[4] https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/standards/113_V1.0_PAR_Validation-and-Verification-Standard.pdf
[5] For projects that wish to highlight its SDG contributions
[6] According to VCS most recent version  Standard v4.4 updated on August 2023