Finds the green claim you cannot evidence
Sustainability reporting has moved from voluntary narrative to something regulators, customers and auditors examine, and the exposure is no longer reputational alone. Enforcement over unsubstantiated environmental claims has become routine in several jurisdictions, and the claims challenged are rarely deliberate deception — they are marketing copy written years ago by someone who believed it, never checked against a calculation.
The failures are all about evidence. A claim with no calculation behind it. "Carbon neutral" resting on offsets whose retirement nobody can produce a certificate for. A recycled percentage taken from a supplier's marketing page rather than a specification. A reduction claimed against a baseline that was quietly restated. A boundary excluding the largest part of the footprint without saying so — the most common and most consequential, because the excluded part is usually the supply chain.
And the mismatch nobody checks: the website says one thing, the annual report another, the tender response a third. All three are public, and a challenger reads all three.
This agent checks each claim against the evidence behind it and reports which are substantiated, which are unsupported, and where your own published statements contradict each other. It calculates no footprint, writes no claim, and gives no legal opinion.
While correcting one is editing, not a response.
Which is what a challenger tests.
Claim to calculation to source, written down.
A footprint excluding the supply chain without saying so is the most common failure and the most consequential — the excluded part is usually the largest.
Marketing copy written years ago by someone who believed it, and never checked against a number.
"Carbon neutral" needs a certificate someone can produce. Often nobody can.
A reduction against a baseline that quietly moved is the finding a challenger looks for first.
Website, annual report and tender responses. All public, all read by the same challenger.
It never produces a footprint figure or drafts a claim. It reports what your evidence does and does not support.
Why Compliance & Risk in particular. The most consequential failure is a boundary that excludes the supply chain without saying so — and the website, the annual report and the tender response usually state three different numbers, all public.
Runs unattended
Started by you or by an event, and it finishes on its own. Nothing waits for someone to be at a desk.
The same standard every time
The two-hundredth item is held to the bar the first one was. Consistency is the part people cannot sustain.
It cannot act on its own
Sustainability Claim Auditor has no path to sending, spending or committing. That limit is why its output is safe to act on.
This agent runs server-side through the PROMIVO runtime. Each run is logged step by step and every tool call is permission-checked before it executes.
Read-only by design. This agent has no path to sending, spending, publishing or committing anything. Where that limit is the product, removing it would remove the reason to trust the output.
Demo dataIllustrative sample output, abridged.
{
"claims": [],
"reportingYear": "2026"
}{
"claims": [
{
"claim": "\"We have cut our emissions by 42% since 2019.\"",
"status": "partly-substantiated",
"channel": "Website homepage",
"chainBreaksAt": "The calculation supports 42% within the stated boundary. The boundary excludes the supply chain and the homepage does not say so. The qualifier exists in the annual report, three documents away from where the claim is read.",
"evidenceFound": "Calculation present, method documented, source data traceable."
},
{
"claim": "\"Our packaging is 80% recycled content.\"",
"status": "unsupported",
"channel": "Product pages",
"chainBreaksAt": "The 80% comes from a supplier's marketing page. No specification, no certificate, no test report. A supplier's own marketing cannot support your published claim.",
"evidenceFound": "None beyond the supplier's website."
}
],
"boundary": {
"stated": "Direct operations and purchased energy.",
"excludes": [
"The entire supply chain",
"Product use",
"Business travel"
],
"disclosedWhereClaimed": false
},
"escalate": true,
"disclaimer": "A check of claims against the evidence supplied. No emissions or other figure has been calculated or estimated, no claim has been drafted or reworded, no statement is made that any claim is lawful or compliant, and this is not legal advice on green claims regulation.",
"offsetFindings": [
"The carbon neutral claim rests on 12,000 tonnes of offsets. Purchase evidence exists for 12,000. Retirement certificates exist for 7,400. Purchased is not retired, and the gap is the claim."
],
"escalationReason": "A published claim has no evidence beyond a supplier's marketing page, offset retirement covers only 62% of the volume claimed, a baseline was restated without disclosure, and three public channels state three different reduction figures.",
"qualifierPlacement": [
"The boundary qualifier the headline claim depends on appears only in an appendix of a separate document."
],
"baselineRestatements": [
"The 2019 baseline was restated upward by 6% in the 2024 report. The restatement is not disclosed anywhere, and it improves every reduction percentage published since. This is what a challenger looks for first."
],
"channelContradictions": [
"The website says 42% reduction. The annual report says 31% on the same base year. A tender response in June said 45%. All three are public."
]
}No integrations required.
Every claim traced to its evidence.
Old copy nobody has revisited since it was written.
Whether your answers match your published position.
What an assurance provider will ask for.
$449/month
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits.
No. Calculating a footprint requires methodology decisions with accountability attached. It checks claims against the calculation you already have, and reports where there is none.
No. It reports whether a claim is substantiated by the evidence supplied. Whether a specific claim complies with a specific regime is a question for your own counsel.
No. It reports what the evidence supports and what it does not. A claim rewritten by an agent to sound defensible is the same problem in better prose.
No reviews yet. Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agent