Why not use a large consultancy?
A fair question. Here is an honest answer — including where traditional consultancies are stronger, where we are, and why it matters for your decision.
Where traditional consultancies are stronger
We should be honest about this. A large, established environmental consultancy has advantages that we do not:
Institutional name recognition — a McKinsey or EY report carries a reputational weight that an independent assessment service does not.
Breadth of geographic coverage — major consultancies have offices in more countries and can draw on local expertise more readily for less common geographies.
Full-service scope — large consultancies can bundle feasibility work with regulatory advisory, government engagement, and multi-disciplinary services that fall outside carbon assessment.
ESIA and social impact assessment — some project types require Environmental and Social Impact Assessments that are beyond the scope of carbon-specific feasibility.
The question that matters
The relevant question for a carbon project buyer or developer is not which provider has a more recognisable name. It is: which provider's assessment will identify the specific failure modes that are costing developers $150,000–$500,000 in wasted capital — and will their conclusions survive independent review?
Our answer: we assess projects the same way we develop them — using current project-specific data, applying current methodology standards, and documenting the evidence behind every conclusion. That is what our certified projects have been validated against. It is what your feasibility assessment will be based on.