We do not offer “starting from” prices. Instead, we are transparent about how our pricing is determined.

Scope and complexity of the calculation. The scope and complexity of the calculation significantly influence pricing. The number of entities and locations included, geographical coverage, scope 3 categories, as well as the availability and quality of data all impact the level of resources required for calculation and reporting.

Used standards. Our calculations are based on the GHG Protocol standards. More demanding frameworks, such as ESRS-compliant calculation and reporting, increase the workload due to additional reporting requirements and verification processes.

Organizational level of expertise. If carbon footprint calculation is already familiar to your organization, the project typically progresses more smoothly. For organizations that are just beginning their climate journey, sufficient time must be allocated for learning and iteration to ensure that the results can be effectively utilized and communicated.

Modeling complexity. The more complex the product or service being modeled – or its value chain – the more work is required in the modeling phase to ensure that the results meet the requirements of the selected standards and any applicable product category rules. Complexity is also influenced by the number of suppliers and the availability and quality of data.

Life cycle boundaries and environmental impact categories. As a starting point in both LCA and carbon handprint calculations, all life cycle stages are typically included (cradle-to-grave). Similarly, LCA generally covers all environmental impact categories. In some cases, however, a more limited system boundary (e.g. cradle-to-gate) may be considered.

Used standards. Standard requirements add their own layer of complexity to projects. LCA is based on ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards, as well as any relevant product category rules. In addition, preparing an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is also possible.

Scope of the calculation. The workload depends on how broadly the footprint is assessed: at the level of the entire organization, a specific business unit or product, or for example a particular part of the value chain.

Available data. The amount, quality, and complexity of available data affect the workload of the modeling phase. Quantity does not necessarily compensate for quality, and on the other hand, a large volume of data can significantly increase both the accuracy of the calculation and the amount of modeling work required.

Depth of analysis. A biodiversity footprint assessment can be carried out at a high level as a preliminary screening or as a more detailed and in-depth analysis. The more precise and comprehensive the assessment, the more work the project requires.

Accuracy of the carbon footprint calculation. Since the modeling of emission reduction measures is always based on the organization’s carbon footprint calculation, the accuracy of that calculation also affects the level of effort required in the modeling phase. A more accurate calculation can reduce the workload when modeling emission reduction measures.

Modeled emission reduction measures. The number of emission reduction measures to be modeled is almost directly proportional to the workload. The complexity of the measures also plays a role – the more numerous and complex the measures being modeled, the higher the overall project cost.

Scenarios. If the effectiveness of emission reduction measures is to be assessed across multiple scenarios, this requires additional research work to define assumptions and to carry out the modeling.

Starting point. The starting point of your organization influences the scope of the project. What methods have been used to calculate your carbon footprint? Do you already have emission reduction measures or climate targets in place? If these are not available, additional analysis is required before the climate roadmap itself can be developed.

Standalone climate roadmap or a broader transition plan? Developing a standalone climate roadmap is relatively straightforward. However, if you are required to prepare, for example, an ESRS-compliant transition plan, the roadmap alone is not sufficient – the work must be complemented with scenario and resilience analyses, as well as potential cost assessments.

Organizational level of expertise. Developing and implementing a climate roadmap or transition plan involves strategic-level climate work. To ensure that the results can be effectively integrated into business operations, sufficient time should be allocated for key personnel to learn, engage in discussions, and iterate assumptions and materials – especially if your climate work is still at an early stage.

Number of emission reduction measures. The greater the number of measures included in the optimization of the plan, the more time is required for modeling. If emission reduction measures have already been identified, this reduces the workload, as the project can build on a more advanced starting point.

Scenarios. Optimization can be carried out across multiple time horizons and budget scenarios. The number of scenarios directly increases the amount of modeling and documentation required.

Level of detail of the analysis and plan. The plan can be developed at a higher level or in a highly detailed manner, including cost and climate impact assessments. Increased precision adds to the complexity of the modeling and the amount of research work required.

Level of support required. The level of support required depends on your organization’s level of expertise. If you only need assistance with individual questions, the project remains relatively light. Preparing the entire commitment, however, represents a significantly larger effort.

Starting point. If you already have a carbon footprint calculation and emission reduction measures in place, making a climate commitment is relatively straightforward. Without these, the commitment cannot be developed.

Scope of the commitment. The workload depends on whether the commitment covers only your own emissions (scope 1 and 2) or also includes the value chain (scope 3). The level of ambition also plays a role, particularly if additional emission reduction measures need to be developed to meet the targets.

Existing operating models. If your organization already has established processes and experience in partner collaboration, the work is more straightforward. Missing structures or the need to build operating models from scratch increase the workload.

Scope of the value chain and number of partners. The broader the value chain and the greater the number of engaged partners, the more communication, coordination, and support are required.

Depth of engagement and approach. The level of effort can vary from light guidance to extensive collaboration, including workshops, target-setting, continuous sparring with partners, and the development of monitoring tools. The more in-depth the engagement, the more resources the work requires.

Scope of the training and target audience. When designing the training, both the number of participants and the diversity of target groups must be taken into account. A larger group of participants and more diverse audiences increase the amount of planning required to ensure that the key messages are effectively communicated.

Level of customization of the content. Training can be delivered at a general level or tailored specifically to your organization’s operations, goals, and industry, based on your level of expertise. A higher level of customization increases the workload.

Delivery method and duration. The required resources depend on whether the training is delivered as a single session or as a broader training program, and whether it includes workshops, more extensive training materials, or follow-up support.

Starting point. If your organization already has partially established sustainability practices and operating models, the work is more straightforward. Building structures, processes, or practices from scratch increases the overall workload.

Level and duration of support required. The workload depends on the extent of expert support needed – ranging from a few days per month to a more continuous and hands-on role.

Scope of work and responsibilities. The service may include individual development tasks or a broader responsibility for coordinating, leading, and reporting sustainability work. The greater the scope and expertise required, the more resources need to be allocated.

Baseline. The workload depends on how readily data on emission reduction measures and targets is available and can be integrated into the tool. Manual data collection or additional modeling increases the level of effort required.

Level of detail in monitoring. Depending on whether monitoring is conducted at the organizational level or at the level of individual measures, the required workload can vary significantly. The more detailed the monitoring, the more effort is needed to develop dashboards.

Scope of implementation and user support. The organization’s level of expertise influences how much guidance, training, and user support is needed to ensure the tool can be used independently.

Scope of reporting and applicable standards. The scope and level of detail of reporting depend directly on whether it is carried out in a flexible format or in accordance with frameworks such as VSME or ESRS. The number of topics to be reported also has a significant impact on the overall content.

Starting point and existing data. If sustainability reporting has already been carried out previously, the work is more straightforward. When starting from scratch, time is required for defining the scope as well as mapping and collecting existing data.

Level of support and division of work. The project can range from producing individual content elements to preparing the full report and managing the entire process. The more responsibility and implementation work assigned to the provider, the broader the scope of work.

Target audiences and communication channels. The diversity of target audiences and the number of communication channels significantly influence the scope of content creation and, consequently, the resources required.

Scope and level of detail of the plan. The sustainability communication plan is tailored to your organization’s needs. Depending on the maturity of your existing corporate communications and the level of impact you aim to achieve, the plan can be high-level or highly detailed.

Content production and customization. The scope of the project can range from sparring individual messages to comprehensive content planning and production. The more and the more tailored the content required, the greater the workload for the provider.

Scope of the assessment. The scope of the assessment depends on whether the focus is on a single product, a process, or a broader view covering the entire business or value chain.

Depth of analysis and development work. Depending on your needs, the project can range from ideation and preliminary assessments to detailed solutions and business model development. More detailed deliverables increase the workload also in the analysis phase.

Implementation and need for piloting. If the project serves mainly as an initial step toward circular economy design, the workload is lighter. If support is also needed to implement solutions in practice, for example through piloting, the project requires more time and resources.