RINS Carbon Compliance is a compliance data platform for companies that put physical products on the European market. Carbon accounting, extended producer responsibility and the digital product passport all draw on the same underlying record — so we built that record properly before building anything on top of it.
Most compliance software starts at the report. It produces a document that looks correct, and the data underneath it is a spreadsheet nobody can defend. That works until an assurance provider asks where a number came from.
We started at the other end. The first thing we built was unglamorous: unit normalization, an emission factor library, supplier factor mapping, and an evidence layer that ties every value back to the document it came from. It took longer and demonstrated nothing. It is also the reason every module since has been quick to add, and the reason we can answer the question that matters — can you prove this figure?
Early on we found a fault in our own double materiality logic. Topics that had not been scored were being treated as not material, which silently suppressed mandatory Scope 1, 2 and 3 figures. No error appeared. The report looked complete.
That taught us the failure mode worth designing against. A system that crashes gets fixed. A system that returns a plausible number without an error gets filed. Every compliance-critical path in the platform now carries a guard test that we prove fails before we prove it passes — because a test that has never been red has not tested anything.
We applied the same standard to digital tagging. Our XBRL export is built on the official EFRAG ESRS taxonomy and conformance-tested against the real product export path, not a copy of it. Invented namespaces and plausible-looking concept names produce filings that fail at the gate, and you find out at the worst possible moment.
We test against live environments rather than only synthetic fixtures, because real data contains the problems that matter — a duplicated invoice, a supplier mapped to the wrong factor, a correction that needs to propagate through a signed disclosure. Every figure-changing path carries before-and-after metadata, so a restatement is a recorded act rather than an overwrite.
We also work with a circular economy partner network that brings something most compliance vendors do not have: real end-of-life and chain-of-custody data. Plenty of platforms have the schema for what happens to a product after sale. Very few have the data.
Audit trail, correction workflow and materiality guards are in every plan including the cheapest. We charge for scale — entities, markets, consolidation — never for the platform being right.
We do not grant entry to your data on your behalf, not even to help. Client companies always self-provision, and attestation authority is granted to a named person and recorded as a formal act.
Scheme, government and eco-contribution charges are passed through at cost and itemised. Taking a cut of a statutory fee is a fast way to lose the trust the rest of the product depends on.
Our roadmap is public and honestly labelled. Where a module is in development we sell readiness for it, clearly described as readiness, rather than implying it ships today.
Carbon normalization, emission factor library, supplier mapping, evidence lineage.
ESRS E1 across roughly 175 data points, double materiality, conformant XBRL export, auditor evidence package, correction and supersede workflow.
Product-on-market register, chain of custody, packaging and WEEE, Germany, France and Italy first, eco-modulation tracking.
CIRPASS-aligned model with the three-tier access split, batteries first, electronics second. Readiness engagements available now; the module is not yet shipping.
No SDR, no qualification script. A working conversation about what you place on the market and what that obliges you to do.