Sustainability · 04.4
Diversion
reporting.
Short answer
- Three to five pages, written for auditors
- Avoided emissions presented outside Scope 1/2/3, correctly
- Scale tickets referenced and available on request
- Historical retrospectives back to 2019
Request a certificate
What you get
Five sections, in this order
- 01
Scope and period
Reporting period, the entity, the sites included, and which of your purchase orders or sales the figures cover. Ambiguity here is what gets a report rejected.
- 02
Unit counts by disposition
How many units were resold as-is, reconditioned, rebottled, recovered as material, or sent to permitted disposal. Disposal is listed even when it is four units out of four hundred, because omitting it would make the rest untrustworthy.
- 03
Tonnage by material stream
HDPE, galvanised steel, plastic and wood, each with certified scale ticket references. Tickets are available on request and we expect them to be requested.
- 04
Avoided emissions with methodology
Per-unit coefficients, their sources, the uncertainty range, and the arithmetic. Presented as a separate avoided-impact disclosure rather than netted against any scope.
- 05
Statement and signature
What the document asserts, what it does not assert, and who signed it. The limitations paragraph is not boilerplate — it is the part that makes the rest usable.
Worked example
A 400-unit annual purchase
Figures from an actual certificate, with the customer anonymised. This is roughly what a mid-size blender's annual IBC purchasing looks like on paper.
| Line | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Units supplied, reconditioned grade | 318 | Sales records |
| Units supplied, rebottled grade | 62 | Sales records |
| Units supplied, food grade | 20 | Sales records |
| Units collected back from customer sites | 287 | Collection manifests |
| HDPE kept in service or recovered | 19.1 t | Scale tickets REIBC-W-2026-0114 et seq. |
| Galvanised steel kept in service | 16.4 t | Scale tickets, same series |
| Landfill volume avoided | 136 m³ | Crushed-unit basis, 0.34 m³ per unit |
| Avoided emissions, total | 48.1 t CO₂e | 318 × 126 kg + 62 × 64 kg + 20 × 126 kg |
| Units to permitted disposal | 3 | Unidentifiable residue; manifest references supplied |
| Units to landfill | 0 | Zero-landfill policy in force since 2017 |
Why it is written this way
Four deliberate choices
A sustainability report is only useful if it survives someone trying to break it. These four choices are what make that likely.
Avoided impact is kept separate
Avoided emissions are not a scope and must not be netted against your inventory. We format the certificate so that mistake is difficult to make, because it is the commonest way a good number becomes a liability.
Disposal is disclosed, always
If three units out of four hundred went to permitted disposal, that line appears. A report with nothing uncomfortable in it reads as marketing to every auditor who has ever seen one.
Uncertainty is stated
Coefficients carry roughly ±15%. We say so and give the range rather than quoting a single figure to three significant figures as though it were measured.
Everything traces to a ticket
Every tonnage line references a certified scale ticket we will produce on request. Numbers without a document behind them do not appear.
What this is not
It is not third-party assured. It is not a certified standard, an eco-label, or an offset. It is a first-party report with published methodology and traceable source documents. Used accurately in a filing it holds up well; described as verified, it will not, and we would rather say that here than have it discovered later. Full methodology →
Questions
Reporting questions
What is on a diversion certificate?
Unit counts by disposition (resold, reconditioned, rebottled, recovered), tonnage by material stream with certified scale ticket references, avoided emissions with the coefficients and methodology stated, the reporting period, and a signature. It is three to five pages and designed to be handed to an auditor without further explanation.
Is this a verified or certified standard?
No, and we are explicit about that. It is a first-party report built on our own asset records and certified weigh tickets, with published methodology. It is substantially more than most suppliers provide and substantially less than a third-party assured LCA. Represent it accurately in your filing and it will hold up; represent it as verified and it will not.
Can we get this for historical purchases?
Yes, back to 2019 — the year our asset records became complete enough to stand behind. Earlier than that we can give you unit counts but not tonnage by stream, and we will say which is which on the document.
Which scope do these emissions fall under?
Avoided emissions are not a scope. They sit outside the Scope 1/2/3 inventory as a separate avoided-impact disclosure, and credible reporting frameworks require them to be presented that way rather than netted against your footprint. We format the certificate accordingly so nobody is tempted to subtract it from a Scope 3 figure.
How long does it take?
Five business days for a standard reporting period. Multi-year retrospectives and jobs requiring us to reconcile against your own purchasing records take two to three weeks, because somebody has to actually match the data.
Frameworks
Where this evidence fits in common reporting frameworks
We are not going to tell you how to file. These are the places our customers have actually used a diversion certificate, and the places it does not belong.
| Context | Fits? | How it is normally presented |
|---|---|---|
| Waste diversion rate | Yes | Tonnage diverted from landfill, with scale tickets behind it |
| Circular-economy or reuse disclosure | Yes | Unit counts, turns, and material kept in service |
| Supplier sustainability questionnaire | Yes | Attach the certificate; it answers most of the packaging section |
| Avoided-emissions disclosure | Yes, separately | Outside the Scope 1/2/3 inventory, with methodology |
| Scope 3 purchased goods | Partly | The embodied figure of what you bought, not the avoided figure |
| Scope 3 reduction claim | No | Avoided emissions cannot be netted against a scope |
| Carbon offset or credit | No | This is not an offset and we do not describe it as one |
| Marketing claim of carbon neutrality | No | Nothing here supports a neutrality claim |
The two “no” rows are the ones worth taking seriously. Avoided emissions netted against a scope, or presented as an offset, is the fastest way to turn solid evidence into a finding — and reviewers look for exactly that pattern.
Requesting one
What we need to produce a certificate
Five business days for a standard period. These are the inputs, and the two that usually cause the delay.
| Input | Why | Causes delay if missing |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting period | Defines the scope of the document | Yes — we cannot guess a boundary |
| Legal entity name | The certificate names who it is issued to | Yes |
| Sites or purchase orders to include | Multi-site customers need the boundary drawn | Yes — the commonest cause of a re-issue |
| Whether to include sales to us | Empties you sold us also generate diversion | No, but it is usually worth including |
| Whether historical years are needed | We hold records back to 2019 | Adds 1 – 2 weeks if retrospective |
| Your reporting framework, if any | Lets us format the avoided-impact section correctly | No, but it reduces re-work |
Short answer
- Standard period: five business days
- Multi-year retrospectives: two to three weeks
- We send a draft before anything is signed
- Scale tickets are available on request and we expect them to be requested
From the Yard Journal
Longer pieces from the people who run the wash line, the test bay and the trading desk.
16 May 2024 · 5 min
How we count a tote that never comes back
Attrition in a returnable pool runs 8% to 14% a year. Pretending otherwise produces sustainability numbers that quietly inflate.
Theo Marsh · Materials & reporting
Read13 February 2025 · 3 min
Why we publish the 88 kg we spend
Most avoided-emissions figures count only the avoided side. Ours subtracts what reconditioning actually costs us, and that subtraction is the reason the number is usable.
Theo Marsh · Materials & reporting
Read5 September 2024 · 4 min
What regrind buyers actually pay for
Colour and melt index, in that order. Sorting to that granularity cut our granulator payback from 4.5 years to 3.2, and nobody modelled it in advance.
Theo Marsh · Materials & reporting
Read
Next move
Tell us the period and the entity.
Reporting period, legal entity and which sites or purchase orders to include. Five business days for a standard period, and we will send a draft before anyone signs anything.