PRD Template for Climate Tech Products

Example: "Mid-market companies spend an average of 480 hours annually on Scope 1 and 2 emissions reporting using spreadsheets, with a 23% error rate in calculations due to incorrect emissions factors and unit conversions. Scope 3 emissions (supply chain) are not measured at all by 72% of companies despite representing 65-95% of total emissions. SEC climate disclosure rules will require auditable Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3 reporting, creating a compliance gap for 80% of public companies."

Example: "Primary: Automate Scope 1 and 2 emissions calculation with accuracy within 5% of manual expert calculation. Coverage: Support Scope 3 estimation for the 5 most material upstream categories. Compliance: Generate reports compliant with GHG Protocol, SEC climate disclosure, and EU CSRD requirements. Efficiency: Reduce annual reporting effort from 480 hours to under 40 hours. Auditability: All calculations traceable to source data and emissions factors with full audit trail."

Example: "As a sustainability manager preparing the annual emissions report, I want the system to automatically calculate Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions from connected data sources (utility bills, fuel purchases, travel records, procurement data) so that I can generate GHG Protocol-compliant reports without manual spreadsheet calculations. Acceptance criteria: calculations use appropriate emissions factors per activity type and region; methodology is documented and exportable for third-party verification; year-over-year comparison with variance explanation."

Example: "FR-1: Emissions calculations must follow GHG Protocol Corporate Standard methodology with location-based and market-based Scope 2 options. FR-2: Emissions factor database must include EPA, DEFRA, IEA, and ecoinvent sources with annual version updates and ability to apply custom factors. FR-3: Data input must support API integration (utility providers, ERP systems), CSV upload, and manual entry with data quality scoring. FR-4: Reporting must generate templates for: GHG Protocol, CDP, TCFD, SASB, EU CSRD, and SEC climate disclosure with auto-populated data and narrative guidance."

Example: "CR-1: GHG Protocol compliance: calculations follow Corporate Standard, Scope 2 Guidance, and Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard methodologies. CR-2: Audit trail: every emissions calculation is traceable to source data, emissions factor, calculation method, and timestamp. Audit trail is immutable and exportable. CR-3: Third-party assurance support: generate assurance-ready documentation per ISAE 3410 (Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements). CR-4: Carbon credit verification: if supporting offset claims, require third-party verified credits (Gold Standard, VCS, ACR) with serial number tracking."

Example: "Accuracy: Calculation variance vs expert manual calculation. Target: within 5%. Coverage: Percentage of customer emissions covered (Scope 1+2+3). Target: 85%. Compliance: Frameworks supported with auto-generated reports. Target: 6 (GHG Protocol, CDP, TCFD, SASB, EU CSRD, SEC). Efficiency: Annual reporting time. Baseline: 480 hours. Target: under 40 hours. Impact: Aggregate emissions reduction identified through customer recommendations. Target: track and report."

Example: "Phase 1 (Months 1-3): Scope 1 and 2 calculation engine with utility and fuel data integration. Milestone: Calculations validated against manual expert calculations for 10 test customers. Phase 2 (Months 4-6): Scope 3 estimation for top 5 material categories. Phase 3 (Months 7-8): Reporting templates for GHG Protocol, CDP, and TCFD. Milestone: Reports reviewed by sustainability consulting partner. Phase 4 (Months 9-10): Third-party assurance documentation support. Phase 5 (Months 11-12): Launch timed for Q1 annual reporting season."

Example: "Risk: Emissions calculation error leads to material misstatement in SEC filing. Likelihood: Low. Impact: Critical (regulatory action, reputational damage). Mitigation: Dual-calculation verification; mandatory review workflow before report finalization; quarterly accuracy audits against manual calculations. Risk: New regulation requires reporting methodology our system does not support. Likelihood: High. Impact: Medium. Mitigation: Modular calculation engine with configurable methodology; regulatory monitoring team tracking proposed rules in US, EU, and UK."

Example: "Integration 1: Utility data — Arcadia, UtilityAPI for automated electricity, gas, and water consumption data. Integration 2: ERP — SAP, Oracle, NetSuite for procurement spend data (Scope 3 spend-based estimation). Integration 3: Travel — Concur, Navan for business travel emissions calculation. Integration 4: ESG platforms — CDP questionnaire auto-fill, Sustainalytics data integration. Integration 5: Accounting — QuickBooks, Xero for spend-based Scope 3 estimation for mid-market companies."

Example: "Q1: Should we support carbon offset/credit purchasing within the platform, or only tracking and reporting? Purchasing creates revenue opportunity but also greenwashing risk if offsets are low-quality. Decision owner: CEO. Needed by: Month 2. Q2: Which Scope 3 categories do we support first? Spend-based estimation is broadest but least accurate; activity-based is more accurate but requires more data. Decision owner: Head of Product. Needed by: Month 3. Q3: Do we pursue third-party assurance of our calculation methodology itself? Adds credibility but costs $50-100K. Decision owner: CFO. Needed by: Month 4."