ISO has published two new standards within its chain of custody framework: ISO 22095-2:2026, focused on mass balance, and ISO 22095-3:2026, dedicated to book-and-claim. Both build on ISO 22095:2020, which had already established the terminology and general models, but they go a step further: they translate practical requirements and guidance for two schemes that many supply chains already use and that, until now, did not have the same level of international harmonization.
This matters not only because it expands an ISO family of standards, but because it confirms a deeper trend: markets where attributes such as recycled content, origin, lower emissions, or certain sustainability characteristics matter are raising the bar on how claims must be supported. ISO presents these new parts as cross-sector references designed to support certification bodies, public policy actors, and cross-border trade.
That matters because mass balance and book-and-claim tend to appear precisely where strict physical traceability is not always viable or sufficient. In the case of book-and-claim, ISO itself explains that the model applies rules on system boundaries, flow attribution, conversion factors, transparency, communication, and claims, while also stressing its differences from mass balance. This is not a minor terminological discussion, but an effort to give more consistency to methodologies that already affect how companies justify attributes across complex chains.
Having data is not the same as being able to prove
For many companies, the real challenge is not a total lack of information. The problem is usually elsewhere: data spread across several systems, evidence generated by third parties, different rules depending on the certification scheme, and difficulty reconstructing in a coherent way what can be declared, with what support, and under which conditions.
When a claim has to withstand an audit, a certification process, or a serious commercial review, the gap between “having data” and “being able to prove” becomes critical. The publication of these standards pushes exactly in that direction: less methodological ambiguity and a greater need for organized, defensible evidence.
Standardization changes the terrain
There is also a strategic reading here. Standardization does not eliminate operational complexity on its own, but it does change the terrain. From now on, it will be harder to treat mass balance or book-and-claim as simple narrative or administrative formulas. If ISO turns them into more explicit and harmonized frameworks, the pressure increases for organizations to demonstrate:
- integrity
- sequence
- attribution rules
- and consistency across the chain of custody
In other words: the conversation shifts a little further from declaration toward proof.
Where this connects with Averiun
This is where the move connects naturally with the kind of problem Averiun helps solve. In multi-actor contexts, the value is not only in recording events, but in turning dispersed information into verifiable evidence that can sustain claims, reduce friction in audits, and be shared with control in front of third parties.
The new ISO standards do not solve that operational layer by themselves, but they do send a clear signal: in chain of custody, it matters less and less to say that an attribute exists and more and more to be able to demonstrate how it is sustained.
More than a technical update
In that sense, ISO 22095-2 and ISO 22095-3 are not only a technical update. They are another sign that useful traceability is no longer decided only at the level of data, but in the ability to turn that data into an evidentiary base that can withstand review, certification, and coordination across multiple actors. And that difference, for many companies, is going to become increasingly decisive.
Written by
Sergio Lugo· CEO
Writes about traceability, operations, and how data veracity becomes a real competitive advantage.
