Your disclosure is ahead of your sector. Your evidence is not.
Eleven Scope 3 categories itemised, four years of three-scope history, TÜV SÜD Limited assurance. The single number that carries 82% of your Scope 3 rests on a method your report never states.
Category 1 restated on activity data Illustrative · the pilot measures this
Method, stated plainly. 194,078 t sits against FY25 revenue of ₹1,437 cr. That implies a purchased goods intensity far below what activity-based emission factors give for multi-step organic synthesis inputs: halogenated intermediates, solvents, fluorochemicals through Tanfac. The 1.6× to 2.5× band is the typical spend-based to activity-based gap observed in specialty chemicals restatements. It is not a computation on your bill of materials. Phase 1 of a pilot replaces it with supplier-specific data.
This is a labelled illustrative band, never a fact. The point is the size of the question, not the answer.
Scope 3 reported under BRSR Disclosed · IAR FY24-25
Total footprint 352,771 tCO2e, FY2024-25. This part is genuinely ahead of your peer set.
| tCO2e | FY25 | FY24 | FY23 | FY22 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 | 84,581 | 87,452 | 76,390 | 97,519 |
| Scope 2 | 32,046 | 29,602 | 32,945 | 41,112 |
| Scope 3 | 236,144 | 253,592 | 264,888 | n/d |
| Total | 352,771 | 370,646 | 374,223 | n/d |
Four years, three scopes, itemised. Credit where it is due.
Pick where we go deeper
Four outcomes from your X-Ray. The Cat 1 track is live end to end, including the Syngenta customer pilot. The rest are one-layer previews.
Cat 1 restatement + assurance evidence ledger
194,078 t rebuilt on supplier activity data, every restated line traced to a source document. Includes the Syngenta customer pilot.
Claims reconciliation ledger
Four numbers in your FY25 report that your own tables do not support. We would rather you heard this from us than from a customer's auditor.
Assurance readiness: Limited to Reasonable
BRSR Core reasonable assurance reaches the top 1,000 by FY2026-27. Your BRSR statement sampled one address.
Cat 10 materiality: processing of sold products
You sell intermediates that Syngenta, Sumitomo, Adama and UPL process further. The weakest of your four exclusions, and the easiest to add.
Peer benchmark and next steps live in the left navigation. The tour ends there.
Restate Category 1, and build the evidence ledger under it
Month two of a pilot: supplier base segmented, primary-data cascade out, activity factors ready to swap in. Simulated
Segment the supplier base by spend and chemistry
Done · 412 suppliers · 82 carry 85.7%Cat 1 is 194,078 t Disclosed · IAR FY24-25 and 82% of your Scope 3. The first job is finding out which suppliers carry it. Supplier counts and cluster splits below are simulated for the demo. Illustrative cohort
| Input cluster | Suppliers | Share of Cat 1 | tCO2e as reported | Current factor basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Halogenated intermediateschloro · bromo building blocks | 21 | 35.0% | 68,000 | Spend-based EEIO |
| Solvents & process chemicals | 34 | 22.9% | 44,500 | Spend-based EEIO |
| Fluorochemical inputsTanfac-linked stream | 9 | 16.0% | 31,000 | Spend-based EEIO |
| Catalysts & specialty reagents | 18 | 11.7% | 22,800 | Spend-based EEIO |
| Packaging & consumables | 27 | 6.8% | 13,200 | Average-data |
| Tail · 303 suppliers | 303 | 7.5% | 14,578 | Sector proxy |
Eighty-two suppliers carry 85.7% of the number. That is a tractable pilot, not a boil-the-ocean programme.
Primary-data collection cascade
Done · 47 of 82 responded · 22% coverageEach of the 82 gets a supplier portal invitation: product-level activity data, energy use, process route, and their own emission factors where they have them. Non-responders stay on spend-based factors, visibly flagged. Response counts are simulated. Simulated cascade
Swap spend factors for supplier activity data
Current step · ready to runEvery cluster recomputes on activity-based factors instead of spend-based EEIO. The result is a labelled range, not a point. The coverage slider below shows what primary data buys you: a tighter band an assurer can sign.
Assurance evidence pack
Waiting for the restatementEvery restated line traces to a source document. This is the artefact set a Reasonable-assurance engagement asks for, and the set your BRSR-scoped statement did not have when it sampled one address.
| Restated line | Source evidence | Evidence type | Traced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Halogenated intermediates21 suppliers | Supplier product carbon footprints · purchase ledger tonnage | Primary · supplier-verified | 14 of 21 |
| Solvents & process chemicals34 suppliers | Supplier energy declarations · ecoinvent process routes | Hybrid · primary + database | 19 of 34 |
| Fluorochemical inputs9 suppliers | Tanfac process data · fluorspar input records | Primary · intra-group | 7 of 9 |
| Catalysts & specialty reagents18 suppliers | Supplier declarations · sector activity factors | Hybrid | 7 of 18 |
| Packaging, consumables, tail330 suppliers | Spend ledger · average-data factors, flagged | Proxy · flagged | Proxy tier |
What Reasonable assurance needs that Limited does not
Reduction pathway on the restated baseline
Pending · after publishNot part of this pilot phase. Once the baseline is defensible it carries a pathway: supplier switching, the coal to biomass transition targeted for 2027, renewable electricity beyond today's 28.7%, and route substitution on the highest-intensity intermediates. Shape below is illustrative, drawn to show what the step produces. Illustrative shape · pending
Nothing on this chart is a target. Targets come after the baseline, not before it. That order is the point.
Syngenta: what they book from you, and what you could hand them instead
Two readings of one customer relationship. Part 1: where your supplier line item stands in their inventory today. Part 2: what changes when you give them primary data.
Current state: you are a supplier line item on their lowest tier
What you are in their inventory Illustrative allocation
Anupam does not disclose revenue by customer, so this uses an assumed 10% revenue share for the relationship. It is a worked illustration of the mechanic, not a claim about Syngenta's actual purchases.
The restatement raises what your customer has to book from you. Telling them first is the whole difference between a partner and a problem.
What we deliberately did not assert
Large agrochemical buyers publish group climate commitments and run supplier-engagement programmes. We have not quoted a Syngenta target figure anywhere in this demo, because we have not re-verified one against their current public filing for this call.
The mechanic below does not depend on their exact target. It depends on the fact that you are a spend-based line item in someone else's Scope 3, which is true for every one of your 75 clients.
We would rather leave a gap on the page than fill it with something we cannot stand behind.
Why this relationship carries risk today Disclosed · FY26 results and IAR FY24-25
This is not CBAM. Organic specialty chemicals sit outside CBAM's current product scope, so your direct CBAM liability is essentially nil. The vector is customer diligence, not a border tax.
Scenario: what supplier engagement does to this line item
Model the engagement programme running
Drag execution forward and watch four numbers move together. Illustrative model
One slider, four readings. The emissions fall, the confidence rises, and the tier is the thing your customer's procurement team actually scores you on.
This line item to FY30 Illustrative projection
Under BAU this line grows with your revenue. Their target does not. Somebody has to close that gap, and it will be the supplier who can evidence it.
What the customer gets
In a live pilot the customer receives a supplier data pack on the same rails: product-level cradle-to-gate footprints for the specific molecules they buy, the data-quality tier on every line, the assurance status, and a refresh schedule. It drops straight into their Cat 1 inventory and moves your line off their proxy tier. They stop estimating you. You stop being an estimate.
Your pilot creates their pilot. The same drilldown runs for all 75 clients, and 31 of them are MNCs with their own value-chain targets.
Claims reconciliation: four numbers your own tables do not support
All four are computed from figures in your FY2024-25 Integrated Annual Report. Nothing here comes from outside your own disclosure. Disclosed · IAR FY24-25
We would rather you heard this from us than from a customer's auditor
This page is a service, not a gotcha. Every one of these is a narrative-to-table mismatch of the kind that happens when a report is assembled by several teams against a tight filing window. They are all fixable before the FY26 report is filed. Left alone, they are the first thing a supplier-diligence reviewer finds, and they cost you credit on disclosure you actually earned.
The ledger
| Claim as written | What your own tables show | Break | Where |
|---|---|---|---|
| "42.58% reduction in Scope 2 emissions" | Scope 2 rose 8.3%. 29,602 t in FY24 to 32,046 t in FY25. | Direction | Narrative vs GHG table |
| "9.2% / 9.4% GHG reduction vs FY24" (Scope 1) | Scope 1 fell 3.28%. 87,452 t to 84,581 t. | Magnitude | Narrative vs GHG table |
| "5.5% reduction in total Scope 1 and Scope 2" | Scope 1+2 fell 0.36%. 117,054 t to 116,627 t. | Magnitude | Narrative vs GHG table |
| "42.58% renewable energy share of total energy consumption" | Your energy table gives 7.62% of total energy, or 28.7% of electricity. Elsewhere the narrative says 65 to 67% of total power consumption; the cover essay says 65% of electricity. | Denominator | Narrative vs energy table |
Four claims, one root cause each. None of them require you to have emitted less. They require the sentence to match the table.
The 42.58% problem
The same figure, 42.58%, is used on three different pages to mean three mutually exclusive things.
A reviewer who spots this once will re-open every percentage in the report. That is the real cost: it puts the numbers you did get right under suspicion too.
Also worth fixing
How the ledger works in a pilot
Four years of tables
FY22 to FY25, three scopes, 11 Scope 3 categories itemised
Claims tied to tables
Every narrative percentage computed from the source table, not typed
Pre-filing check
Draft report runs against the ledger before it goes to the board
Claims defensibility score
Rubric category 3 moves off Neutral once claims reconcile
Your claims score is 10 out of 20 today, which is the neutral band. It is neutral because the claims cannot be checked, not because they are wrong.
Limited to Reasonable: what the gap actually is
You hold two Limited-assurance statements from TÜV SÜD South Asia. Neither is Reasonable. The phrase "BRSR Core" does not appear anywhere in the 314 pages. Disclosed · IAR FY24-25
Your two assurance statements, side by side
| Statement | Criteria | Fieldwork | Sampling | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRSR-scopedUID 4153837455 · signed 24 Jul 2025 | BRSR Annexure II · SEBI | 5 to 11 Jun 2025 | One address: Surat head office | Limited |
| GRI-scopedUID 3153072285 · signed 8 Aug 2025 | GRI Standards 2021, with reference to | Not stated here | 7 on-site + 11 off-site samples | Limited |
The contents page of your report directs readers to the BRSR-scoped statement as the "GRI Assurance Statement". Two engagements, two criteria, two sampling plans, one label.
The sampling problem, drawn
The BRSR-scoped statement covers energy (P6-E1), water (E3 and E4), air emissions (E6), Scope 1 and 2 (E7), waste (E9) and Scope 3 (L2). It sampled one address, and no manufacturing unit.
Sachin
Sachin
Sachin
Sachin
Jhagadia
Jhagadia
Surat
A Limited opinion on site-generated indicators, sampled at the office where none of them are generated.
Indicator by indicator: what Reasonable needs
| Indicator | Today | Gap to Reasonable |
|---|---|---|
| P6-E1 · Energy1,316,083 GJ | Limited | Meter-level records per unit, ISO 50001 evidence pulled through, unit-level recomputation |
| P6-E3 / E4 · Water517,048 KL withdrawn | Limited | Site abstraction and discharge logs, third-party invoices reconciled |
| P6-E5 · ZLDone Jhagadia unit only | Excluded from scope | Bring into scope, and state clearly that ZLD is one unit, not company-wide |
| P6-E6 · Air emissions | Limited | Stack monitoring records per unit, calibration certificates |
| P6-E7 · Scope 1 and 2116,627 tCO2e | Limited | Methodology statement, consolidation approach, fixed base year, fuel and grid factor lineage |
| P6-E9 · Waste | Limited | Manifest-level reconciliation, disposal contractor evidence |
| P6-L2 · Scope 3236,144 tCO2e total only | Limited · total only | Category-level assurance. The 11-category table lives in the narrative, outside the BRSR annexure the assurer read |
The category table you should get the most credit for is the one your BRSR assurance never looked at.
Why the clock matters
SEBI's BRSR Core regime phases reasonable assurance across the top listed entities, reaching the top 1,000 by FY2026-27. Anupam sits in the Nifty Smallcap 250 with a market capitalisation around ₹14,400 cr. Separately, your FY26 annual report and BRSR are not yet filed as of 25 July 2026, and FY25's was filed on 3 September 2025. There is a drafting window open right now.
Category 10: the exclusion that is hardest to defend
You itemise 11 of 15 categories. Four are omitted. Three of them are defensible for a custom synthesis business. One is not. Disclosed · IAR FY24-25
Your four omissions, ranked by how easy they are to defend
| Category | Defensibility today | Our read |
|---|---|---|
| Cat 10 · Processing of sold products | Weak | You sell intermediates. By definition they are processed further by the buyer. This is the category the standard was written for. |
| Cat 11 · Use of sold products | Reasonable | Intermediates have no direct use phase. Downstream of Cat 10, not instead of it. |
| Cat 12 · End-of-life of sold products | Reasonable | Fate is determined by the finished product, not by you. |
| Cat 14 · Franchises | Not applicable | No franchise model. Clean exclusion. |
Three good exclusions and one that a reviewer will ask about. Adding the one moves you from 11 of 15 to 12 of 15.
Why Cat 10 is unavoidable for a CSM business
Your business model is custom synthesis. You make intermediates that a customer converts into an active ingredient or a finished formulation. Named public customers include Syngenta, Sumitomo Chemical, UPL, Adama and DuPont, all of whom run further processing steps on what you ship.
Disclosed · FY26 results Every one of those percentages describes a product that is processed after it leaves you.
What a Cat 10 screening looks like
We have deliberately not put a tonnage on this page. Cat 10 cannot be estimated credibly from public data because it depends on the conversion route each customer runs, which only they know. That is exactly why it starts as a screening with your top customers, not as a number in a report.
Product family map
Group your shipped intermediates by the downstream conversion they feed
Customer conversion enquiry
Top 10 customers, one question each: what happens to this molecule next
Screening estimate
Route-based energy and yield assumptions, published as a labelled range
Disclose with method
12 of 15 categories, with the estimation method and its limits stated
A labelled screening estimate with a stated method scores better than a silent omission. It also opens the customer conversation you want to be having anyway.
Artifacts
Every number starts as a validated upload or API run with row-level lineage. This is the simulated mid-pilot state. The public documents are real; the supplier files and their record counts are simulated. Simulated
| Name | Methodology | Feeds | Loaded | Records | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| anupam_integrated_report_FY24-25.pdf2nd Integrated Report · six capitals | Document extraction | All scopes · energy · water | Jul 17, 2026 | 314 pp | Completed |
| anupam_brsr_FY24-25.pdfstandalone BRSR · Scope 3 total only | BRSR parse | P6 indicators | Jul 17, 2026 | 48 pp | Completed |
| tuv_sud_assurance_brsr_4153837455.pdfLimited · one address sampled | Assurance scope parse | Assurance status per indicator | Jul 17, 2026 | 1 | Completed |
| tuv_sud_assurance_gri_3153072285.pdfLimited · 7 on-site + 11 off-site | Assurance scope parse | Assurance status per indicator | Jul 17, 2026 | 1 | Completed |
| anupam_fy26_audited_results.pdffiled 23 May 2026 | Financial extraction | Revenue · order book · end markets | Jul 18, 2026 | 1 | Completed |
| supplier_master_spend_FY25.csvtier 1 supplier spend by category | Cat 1 segmentation | Supplier clusters | Jul 20, 2026 | 412 | Simulated |
| supplier_primary_responses_w1.csvwave 1 portal responses | Activity-data ingest | Cat 1 restatement | Jul 22, 2026 | 47 | Simulated |
In a pilot the two simulated files are replaced by your actual supplier master and your actual portal responses. Nothing else on this list changes.
Data registry: every figure in this workspace, with its source
Four assurance states, used consistently across every page. If a number here is not in this table, it is not in this demo.
Emissions · tCO2e · consolidated
| Figure | FY25 | FY24 | FY23 | FY22 | Source & status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 | 84,581 | 87,452 | 76,390 | 97,519 | Disclosed · IAR FY24-25 · TÜV SÜD Limited |
| Scope 2location-based · no market-based figure disclosed | 32,046 | 29,602 | 32,945 | 41,112 | Disclosed · IAR FY24-25 · TÜV SÜD Limited |
| Scope 3total only in the BRSR annexure | 236,144 | 253,592 | 264,888 | n/d | Disclosed · IAR FY24-25 · TÜV SÜD Limited |
| Total footprint | 352,771 | 370,646 | 374,223 | n/d | Disclosed · IAR FY24-25 |
| Scope 1 + 2 | 116,627 | 117,054 | 109,335 | 138,631 | Computed from disclosed rows |
Scope 3 is 67% of the FY25 total. No GHG methodology statement, no consolidation approach and no base year are disclosed anywhere in the report.
Scope 3 by category · 11 of 15 · tCO2e
This table appears in the Natural Capital narrative on printed page 31, not in the BRSR annexure. The standalone 48-page BRSR carries only the 236,144 total. The category numbers below are our GHG Protocol mapping; the published table carries no category numbers.
| Cat | Category | FY25 | FY24 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Purchased goods and services82% of Scope 3 · the frontier | 194,078 | 204,800 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 2 | Capital goods | 12 | 1,317 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 3 | Fuel and energy-related activities | 24,324 | 23,513 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 4 | Upstream transportation and distribution | 5,887 | 5,239 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 5 | Waste generated in operations | 3,287 | 4,184 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 6 | Business travel | 415 | 793 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 7 | Employee commute | 1,485 | 1,752 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 8 | Upstream leased assets | 987 | 146 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 9 | Downstream transportation and distribution | 4,414 | 10,206 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 13 | Downstream leased assets | 70 | 328 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 15 | Investments | 1,186 | 1,313 | Disclosed · p.31 · not individually assured |
| 10 | Processing of sold products | omitted | omitted | Omitted · weakest exclusion |
| 11 | Use of sold products | omitted | omitted | Omitted |
| 12 | End-of-life of sold products | omitted | omitted | Omitted |
| 14 | Franchises | omitted | omitted | Omitted · not applicable |
Components sum to 236,145 against a published total of 236,144. A one-tonne rounding difference. The category table is definitively outside the SEBI/BRSR assurance scope; whether it falls inside the GRI-scoped statement is ambiguous, so we treat it as disclosed but not individually assured.
Energy · FY2024-25
| Total energy | 1,316,083 GJ | Disclosed |
| Renewable · electricity only | 100,319 GJ | Disclosed |
| Renewable share of total energy | 7.62% | Computed from disclosed |
| Renewable share of electricity | 28.7% | Computed from disclosed |
| Non-renewable fuel | 910,853 GJ | Disclosed |
| Non-renewable electricity | 249,011 GJ | Disclosed |
| Purchased steam | 55,900 GJ | Disclosed |
| Solar capacity | 12.5 MW + 5.4 MW | Disclosed |
Zero renewable fuel. Coal to biomass switch targeted 2027. ISO 50001 certified.
Water · FY2024-25
| Withdrawn · 100% third-party | 517,048 KL | Disclosed |
| Consumed | 459,528 KL | Disclosed |
| Discharged | 57,520 KL | Disclosed |
| ZLD coverage | 1 Jhagadia unit | Excluded from assurance |
ZLD is one unit, not company-wide. The ZLD indicator, BRSR P6-E5, was excluded from the assurance scope.
Financials, markets and supply chain
| Revenue from operations · FY2025-26 | ₹2,365 cr | Disclosed · FY26 audited |
| Company headline incl. other income | ₹2,384 cr | Disclosed · FY26 |
| EBITDA · PAT · FY26 | ₹543 cr · ₹222 cr | Disclosed · FY26 |
| Order book | ₹14,646 cr | Disclosed · FY26 |
| Revenue from operations · FY2024-25 | ₹1,436.97 cr | Disclosed · FY25 |
| Exports · countries | 58% · 14 | Disclosed · FY26 |
| Clients · MNCs · top 10 share | 75 · 31 · >80% | Disclosed · FY26 |
| Value chain partners assessed on environment | 0% | Disclosed · BRSR P6-L7 |
| Sustainable sourcing share of inputs | 2.94% | Disclosed · FY25 |
| Sourced within district / neighbouring | 72.37% | Disclosed · FY25 |
| Imported inputs · MSME share | 14.25% · 1.48% | Disclosed · FY25 |
| Workforce | 2,987 | Disclosed |
FY26 growth is substantially inorganic. Jayhawk Fine Chemicals, US, was acquired. FY26 annual report and BRSR are not yet filed as of 25 July 2026, so emissions here are FY2024-25 while revenue is FY2025-26.
Ratings, targets and frameworks
| CDP · B− Climate Change, B− Water Security | Company-reported |
| S&P Global CSA 35 → 38 · ESG 38 → 41 (FY24-25) | Company-reported |
| S&P public page · CSA 42 / ESG 44 (2025 assessment) | Public |
| SBTi · none. The phrase "science-based target" does not appear in the report | Absent |
| 2027 Energy Net Zero (Scope 1) · 2027 Scope 2 Net Zero | Disclosed · no base year |
| Freshwater −5 to 10% by 2030, base FY2020-21 · 1.92% achieved | Disclosed |
| Zero waste to landfill 2027, revised from 2025 · 87.15% achieved | Disclosed |
| 50% of key suppliers meet sustainability criteria by 2030 · zero progress | Disclosed |
| 2nd Integrated Report (IIRC six capitals) · GRI with reference to · BRSR since FY2021-22 · UNGC participant | Disclosed |
| TCFD · IFRS S1/S2 · ISSB | None adopted |
CDP closed public individual-score access at the end of 2024, so the B− grades cannot be independently verified. A CDP response record, ID 901939, does exist. The grades appear once, in an awards box, outside both assurance statements. We label them company-reported everywhere.
Method · how the illustrative figures are built
The Cat 1 restatement band the only estimate that matters
Supplier clusters, counts and responses
The customer allocation on the Syngenta page
The 66 → 79 arc
Why version-pin
At 66 you are not mid-pack. You are the top of this set.
Every score below comes from a Carbon X-Ray Climes ran the same week. Rubric 2.0 scores Corrected and re-ranked on 25 July 2026: you are rank 13 of 1,246 BRSR filers, 99th percentile, and the band moved from Mid-pack to Strong. DISCLOSED · Climes X-Ray DB, recomputed 25 Jul 2026
X-Ray scores · chemicals peer set
At 66 you are at or above Tata Chemicals and Aarti. That is a genuinely different conversation from "sector median". 79 projected
Your 66, and the 47 we sent on Friday
The X-Ray emailed to you last week said 47. It was built on two wrong inputs. We re-ran it against the full integrated report.
| Rubric category | Sent | Corrected |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Disclosure & Compliance/ 50 · BRSR 15 + Limited assurance 8 + SBTi 0 + CDP 7 | 23 | 30 |
| 2 · Emissions & Scope 3/ 30 · S1 3 + S2 3 + S3 8 + breadth 16×11/15 = 11.7 | 14 | 25.7 |
| 3 · Claims Defensibility/ 20 · neutral band | 10 | 10 |
| Total | 47 | 65.7 → 66 |
| Band | Mid-pack | Strong |
| Universe rankof 1,246 BRSR filers | 215 | 13 |
| Percentile | 82nd | 99th |
The two wrong inputs: Scope 3 categories disclosed recorded as 0, when you itemise 11 of 15; and CDP status recorded as none, when you report B− on both questionnaires.
The category you did not gain a point on is claims. That is the one this demo is really about.
What we are not showing you
We have not put a disclosure-detail comparison on this page. We hold scores for these peers, not a re-verified breakdown of what each of them itemises, and we are not going to build a competitive claim on top of data we have not checked for this call. If that comparison is useful to you, it is a week of work and we will do it properly.
From simulation to your supplier data, before the FY26 report is filed
Everything amber in this workspace exists to be replaced by your data. Here is the path, and what it needs from you.
The pilot path
X-Ray baseline
66 / 100 corrected · gaps scored · this workspace seeded
Claims reconciliation
Four breaks closed · methodology statement · base year fixed
Cat 1 restatement
82 suppliers · primary-data cascade · labelled band collapsing
Assurance readiness
Evidence ledger · unit-level sampling plan · Reasonable-ready
Customer packs + Cat 10
Top 10 customers get supplier data packs · Cat 10 screening opens
What the pilot needs from you
Tier-1 supplier master with FY25 spend by category · the FY25 GHG working files behind the published tables · one working session with sustainability, procurement and the report authors · sign-off on the supplier data-request template · an introduction to one customer's sustainability contact. Carbon OS does the segmentation, the factor work, the computation, the lineage and the outputs.
The operating rhythm after
Monthly · supplier responses land as validated artifacts, coverage and band update.
Quarterly · versioned inventory close, claims ledger run against any draft communication.
Yearly · BRSR and integrated report workbook, assurance pack handed to TÜV SÜD, customer data packs refreshed.
Year two is refresh, not rebuild. That is the whole reason to put it on rails now, while the FY26 report is still being drafted.
The ask
A scoped, paid pilot: Category 1 restatement plus assurance readiness, run against the FY26 reporting cycle. Every amber label in this demo becomes your number, with lineage your assurer can sample and a claims ledger that stops the narrative drifting from the tables. If the direction is wrong, we will have found that out honestly, together.
We opened this call by correcting our own error. That is the standard we are offering to hold your numbers to.
How this demo was built
This is a simulation, and we would rather you know exactly how it works than wonder. Everything here was generated from public documents by the Carbon OS engine, the same engine that would run on your supplier data in a pilot.
What is real
Marked Disclosed throughout. From your FY2024-25 Integrated Annual Report (314 pages, TÜV SÜD Limited assurance) and your FY2025-26 audited results of 23 May 2026:
Scope 1, 2 and 3 for FY22 to FY25 · the 11-category Scope 3 table on printed page 31 · total energy 1,316,083 GJ and its splits · water 517,048 KL and its splits · both TÜV SÜD assurance statements, their UIDs, criteria and sampling · FY26 revenue ₹2,365 cr, EBITDA ₹543 cr, PAT ₹222 cr, order book ₹14,646 cr · end-market and export splits · 75 clients, 31 MNCs, top 10 above 80% · 0% of value chain partners assessed · 2.94% sustainable sourcing · both 2027 net-zero commitments · the four claim reconciliation breaks, all computed from your own tables · the peer X-Ray scores.
The CDP B− grades are marked Company-reported, never Disclosed, because CDP closed public individual-score access at the end of 2024 and the grades appear only in an awards box outside both assurance statements.
What is illustrative
Marked Illustrative throughout. Built by the estimation engine, replaced by your data in a pilot:
The restated Cat 1 band of ≈310,000 to ≈480,000 t and its ≈390,000 t midpoint · the supplier cluster splits, the 412 supplier count, the 82 that carry 85.7%, the 47 responses and the 22% primary-data coverage · the 60% mid-pilot progress state · the assurance evidence ledger counts · the 10% customer revenue-share allocation on the Syngenta page and every figure derived from it · the FY30 trajectories · the projected rating of 79.
Method: the Cat 1 restatement band, stated exactly
Method: the 66 → 79 arc
What we deliberately did not assert
Why we demo this way
Nothing here pretends to be your live account. Carbon OS is a working platform. The artifacts, datasets, factor registry and lineage rails under this demo are the real product. The outcome tracks are simulations built to find out, with you, which problem matters most. If this direction is right, a scoped pilot replaces every amber label with your supplier data.
We opened by correcting our own number. A single unlabelled estimate on this page would undo that, so there isn't one.