PUR Alternative Materials Austria Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Noritec, Stall im Mölltal, Austria

PUR-928755 ↗

3.9 / 10

Integrity

3.8

Transparency

4.2

Claim Safety

3.6

Documentation

4.1

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified The verification report (2022-05-31) reports no material findings and no corrective actions required.

missing Additionality, baseline, leakage, and reversal/buffer provisions were not found in the extracted record, creating major integrity uncertainty.

Transparency

verified The extracted record identifies the VVB (bio.inspecta AG) and a defined monitoring period (2020-07-01 to 2021-12-31).

missing Key MRV outputs (claimed vs verified removals) and monitoring details (e.g., usage monitoring method) were not found in the extracted record.

Claim Safety

verified No material findings were reported in the verification report (2022-05-31), which modestly reduces misstatement risk.

missing CORSIA/CCP status and core quantification inputs (baseline/leakage) were not found in the extracted record, increasing greenwashing and over-crediting risk.

Documentation

verified A dated verification report is present (2022-05-31) and two documents were used with medium extraction confidence.

missing Evidence document labeling is incomplete (listed as "unknown"), and many key fields are not stated in available documents.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The verification report (2022-05-31) indicates no material findings and no corrective actions required, which is a positive signal for process quality. However, the extracted record does not include the additionality test type or confirmation of additionality by the VVB, nor does it include the baseline method or when it was last reassessed. Leakage treatment (deduction and justification) and permanence controls (buffer pool percentage or any reversal events) were also not found in the extracted record, so integrity cannot be robustly assessed and is scored conservatively.

Transparency

The extracted record provides the VVB name (bio.inspecta AG) and a clear monitoring period (2020-07-01—2021-12-31), which supports basic traceability. But the extracted record does not provide total removals claimed or verified, nor does it specify the monitoring/usage tracking method, limiting independent scrutiny of MRV. Registry and eligibility fields (e.g., CORSIA) are also not stated in available documents, reducing transparency for end users.

Claim Safety

Because the extracted record lacks the claimed and verified removal totals, it is not possible to check for discrepancies or quantify over-crediting risk. Baseline and leakage approaches are not stated in available documents, which are central to defensible claims under carbon credit quality expectations. CCP status and CORSIA eligibility are also not found in the extracted record, so buyers face uncertainty about how the credit can be marketed and whether claims could be misinterpreted.

Documentation

A verification report dated 2022-05-31 is present and the VVB is identified, which supports minimum documentation expectations. However, the evidence document list is not specific (shown as "unknown"), and many critical fields (additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence provisions, quantified outcomes) were not found in the extracted record. With only two documents used and medium extraction confidence, documentation completeness is moderate-to-weak.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so there is no need to privilege one document value over another. The main limitation is evidence gaps: the extracted record does not include quantified removals, additionality, baseline, leakage, or permanence provisions, despite having a verification report with no findings. As a result, the project scores below average across integrity, transparency, and claim safety due to inability to substantiate core quality attributes from the available extracted documentation.

Audit Analysis

The project has third-party verification by bio.inspecta AG and no material findings or corrective actions reported in the verification record. However, key integrity and MRV elements (additionality test, baseline approach, leakage treatment, permanence/reversal provisions, and quantified removals) were not found in the extracted record, which increases over-crediting and claim-risk uncertainty.

Project Description

NORITEC Holzindustrie GmbH is a subsidiary of the HASSLACHER Group, one of Europe's leading timber groups. Stall im Mölltal is one of several facilities that produce Cross Laminated Timber in the HASSLACHER Group. The facility produces approximately 70 000 m3 of finished CLT products per year. CLT is a recent innovation in the timber industry. It was first developed in Austria. CLT is a wood panel product made from glueing together layers of solid-sawn lumber. Each layer of boards is usually oriented perpendicular to adjacent layers. By gluing layers of wood at right angles, the panel can achieve better structural rigidity in both directions. Because of CLT's structural properties, and its ability to be prefabricated and low weight, CLT can be used in mid-rise and high-rise buildings, often as a replacement for concrete elements with similar durability. Further advantages are the very good insulation properties and the high mechanical performance together with a low density. NORITEC uses 100 % FSC or PEFC timber. Timber products from sustainable forestry can be considered renewable. NORITEC has a valid Environmental Product Declaration for CLT. Environmental Production Declarations (EPDs) provide a basis for informed decision-making about the environmental attributes of products. The EPD shows that each cubic meter (m3) of CLT board stores 585 kg of CO2 that the tree absorbed from the atmosphere during its growth period. All emissions from the harvesting of the timber, transport to the production facility, and through to the production and packaging of the products were accounted for in accordance with the Puro methodology. Additionality: The baseline scenario for commercial buildings is the use of reinforced concrete elements which have a heavy CO2 footprint. Under the activity penetration threshold of 5%, all load-bearing engineered wooden elements of this type are considered to be additional. The Puro methodology for bio-based construction guarantees a minimu

Red Flags

No quantified claimed or verified removals were found in the extracted record, limiting the ability to assess over-crediting risk.
Additionality approach and whether it was confirmed by the VVB were not found in the extracted record.
Baseline method and any reassessment timing were not found in the extracted record.
Leakage deduction and justification were not found in the extracted record.

Credit Vintages Exhausted

		Issued	Retired	Available
2022		47,600	47,600	0
Total		47,600	47,600	0

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Publish or extract the verification statement tables showing total removals claimed and total removals verified for the 2020-07-01—2021-12-31 monitoring period.
Provide the documented additionality assessment (test type and VVB conclusion), baseline definition (and any reassessment timing), and leakage justification/deduction used under the applicable Puro methodology version.

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.