360° Impact Portfolio is the carbon credit procurement service of Carbon Advisory Limited. The method on this site was built because the alternative — one person deciding under time pressure, without the frameworks — is how the market got its reputation.
Whether the project is additional, whether the tonne has been counted twice, whether the methodology still holds, whether anyone was harmed, and whether the credit supports the specific claim the organisation intends to make.
Normally that decision falls to one person without the time, the appropriate frameworks or the technical expertise for it. So in practice it gets made without the assessment behind it. The published method is our answer to that, and it works by separating a question of eligibility from a question of cost.
A project meets the requirements for the intended claim or it does not. Nothing weaker is offered at a lower price, because nothing weaker is offered at all. That is the part that has to be settled before anyone talks about money.
Within what qualifies, we source as efficiently as we can, and that efficiency reaches the client in the price. Once the specification is fixed, price is the only thing left to optimise, and we use it for what it is: a cost to keep down.
Turning a technical judgement into a procurement decision is the whole idea, and the order is what makes it work.
The experience is practical and continuing, and it is why we can identify the least-cost route to a specification quickly, assess it properly and document the decision.
Twenty years of carbon certification and verification practice. The assessment work on this site is an application of that, turned towards the buying decision rather than the issuing one.
Carbon credits procured for clients since 2020, alongside long-standing client relationships, some of them extending back twenty years.
Direct developer relationships and market contacts, with a working knowledge of which project types, vintages and cohorts are available at what price on any given day.
We screen projects on an ongoing basis rather than in response to enquiries. Every assessment on our books was made for our own buying decisions, before any client saw it.
Naming the second is more useful than protesting about the first. An independence claim that only addresses the conflict you do not have is not an independence claim.
There is a familiar criticism of carbon credit rating: the rater is paid by the party being rated. That is not this model. No project developer pays us to assess its projects, and no assessment is produced at a developer’s request. Our relationships with developers are purchasing relationships. We take no referral commissions, rebates or fees from developers, registries or brokers — our revenue is the price the client agrees, and nothing else.
We are the seller, acting as principal rather than as the client’s agent, and we hold no inventory to clear. But because we quote a fixed price ahead of sourcing, our margin expands when we source at lower cost. That is a real incentive pointing in a direction nobody should have to trust us about, so rather than ignore it we constrain it contractually.
Each of these is something a client or an assurance provider can check. None of them asks you to take a view about our character, which is the point.
There is no route by which commercial pressure on our side resolves itself into a weaker credit on yours.
You contract against a defined specification
A named claim category and a named Impact Band, both set out in a published specification. What arrives can be checked against what you agreed rather than accepted on trust.
We warrant the assessment
Every credit assessed against the published criteria for its role, every carbon-carrying credit meeting the contracted claim category, and the delivered portfolio meeting the contracted band at the date of assessment, with the work recorded in full.
You get the workings
You and your auditor can inspect the underlying assessment and check it against the rules published on this site. Nothing about the screen is visible only to us.
Commercial staff cannot change the outcome
Verdicts and scores cannot be edited, and tonnage cannot be reallocated after the fact, to make a cheaper portfolio reach a contracted band. That is enforced in the software rather than left to internal policy.
The pressure valve is price, not quality
Where the market moves against us, the decision goes back to you: a revised price on the same specification, or a refund. We do not substitute a weaker credit to hold a price, and we retain no fee on an assignment we could not complete.
A criterion is tested against documentation and a verdict reached. A goal is scored against evidence and a step chosen. Those are judgements — made against a published standard, by practitioners applying it as consistently as we can make them, but judgements. Saying otherwise would be the first thing an assurance provider disbelieved.
Two people assessing the same project independently should reach the same verdict on every criterion, and land within one step of each other on every goal. A calibration sample runs quarterly, and the written guide names in advance the criteria most likely to produce disagreement, so those are the ones we sample.
We treat the written guide as being at fault rather than the assessor, and revise it. Two competent people reading the same rule and reaching different answers is a defect in the rule. Fixing the assessor would leave the same ambiguity waiting for the next one.
Where a judgement is close, the method takes the lower reading. This is designed in, and it is not discretionary. Where documentation is silent or ambiguous, a criterion is recorded as a gap rather than as met, and a goal takes the lower step. Variability resolves towards the more conservative answer rather than in whichever direction suits the sale. On the pass rule, that means a borderline project fails.
Behind the published pages sits a technical set: the assessment manual, the assessor guides, the applicability matrices, the commercial and operating model, the governance document, the claim-eligibility schedule and the position papers. That set is the actual standard. Each document carries a version and a change record.
Not because they are confidential. The gates, the criteria, the verdict vocabulary, the scoring ladder and the pass rule are all published openly here. They are working assessor documents written for people who assess projects, and handing the full set to someone who asked a simple question is not disclosure. It is a wall. Ask, and they arrive. If you are an assurance provider testing a claim one of our clients has made, say so and we will prioritise it.
A portfolio remains assessed under the method contracted for its original claim period, so a later revision changes neither what was delivered nor what may be claimed. At a subsequent engagement, existing holdings are re-screened against the method then in force, and the client receives the eligibility and impact-band gap analysis that follows from it.
A method that publishes only its settled parts is telling you half of what you need. These are open, and they are marked as open wherever they appear on this site.
As at September 2026.
Twenty years of verification practice is what makes the assessment competent. It does not make us independent of the transaction, and no amount of experience could.
Assess projects against published criteria, curate a portfolio to a contracted specification, buy and retire the credits in your name, and record the whole decision in a form an independent reviewer can follow. We are your commercial counterparty throughout.
We do not verify credits ourselves, and the evidence pack is not an assurance opinion. Where your organisation requires independent assurance, our documentation is structured to support that review and the assurance conclusion remains your provider’s. Compliance responsibility remains yours.
An assessment made by the seller is worth something only if the seller publishes the rules and hands over the workings. That is why both are on this site.
360° Impact Portfolio is a trading name of Carbon Advisory Limited, registered in England and Wales. Company number 13584867. Registered office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, England, WC1N 3AX.
Tell us the claim you intend to make and the Impact Band you want the finished portfolio to reach. Everything on this page is checkable against what we then deliver.