CIRS C&K Testing: LCA and EPD Services Snapshot

Who they are

CIRS C&K Testing is the testing and certification arm of CIRS Group, a regulatory consultancy founded in 2007 with offices in the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, China, Japan, and South Korea. Their footprint suggests the ability to run projects across time zones and languages, which matters once suppliers and plants span continents (CIRS Group About).

What services show up for manufacturers

C&K publishes an English service page describing Environmental Product Declaration support that includes end‑to‑end guidance built on Life Cycle Assessment, coordination with a program operator, and registration. They outline the three familiar phases: data collection, LCA and EPD report compilation and review, then EPD registration application (C&K EPD certification). The broader CIRS site also advertises an EPD service built on LCA and an internal emission‑factor database (CIRS Group EPD).

Scope and rulebooks they reference

Their materials reference major EPD program operators such as EPD International, EPD Norge, UL, and EPD China, which signals comfort working under common rule sets. Expect conversations about suitable PCRs and where to publish. PCRs typically have five‑year validity windows, then get reviewed or renewed, so timing and version control matter for anyone planning multi‑year product updates (UL Solutions, 2025). Published EPDs themselves are normally valid for five years under program rules, and a PCR update does not invalidate an already published EPD until renewal (EPD International FAQ, 2025).

Data intake and tools

CIRS describes classic intake paths: company and product data research, questionnaires, and LCA modeling using internal databases. That implies spreadsheet requests, utility pulls, mass balance checks, and iterative clarifications before verification. The group site notes use of an emission‑factor database for calculations, which is consistent with consultant‑led LCA workflows rather than self‑serve software (CIRS Group EPD).

Timelines to expect

C&K’s page shares indicative timing of roughly three to five months from kickoff to registration, contingent on how quickly plant data arrives and how complex the product system is. Teams should budget internal hours for workshops, data chasing, and verifier Q&A, especially when multi‑plant or multi‑SKU families are in scope (C&K EPD certification).

Industries and geographies they highlight

Their EPD overview cites sectors such as electric power, vehicles, electronics, chemicals, materials, and fertilizers. Alongside EPDs, C&K promotes battery carbon‑footprint services aligned with EU PEF rules, which can be useful for manufacturers straddling building products and electrification supply chains (Battery carbon footprint). For building products, note that product‑specific EPDs continue to contribute in LEED v5 materials pathways, ratified by USGBC on March 28, 2025, which keeps EPDs commercially relevant in North American bids (USGBC, 2025) (USGBC LEED v5).

Verification support and publication

C&K’s materials point to third‑party review and registration with operators. Manufacturers should clarify who selects and contracts the verifier, how many verification cycles are included in scope, and which operator fees are treated as pass‑throughs. It is worth confirming whether draft labels, digital submissions, and machine‑readable datasets are included or billed separately, since more owners now request data feeds into procurement tools.

What the working experience typically feels like

Traditional consulting projects are structured. Expect a kickoff workshop to align on system boundaries and functional units, detailed questionnaires for A1 to A3, and document requests for energy, water, waste, packaging, and transport. Spreadsheets are normal. So are 2 to 4 iteration loops with the verifier before publication. It works, but it asks for real time from operations, quality, and finance. Modern buyers increasingly look for lower‑friction intake and faster turnarounds, particularly when sales cycles hinge on hitting submittal deadlines. Getting that balance right is the whole game.

Competitors you may meet in the same lane

In the China and Asia‑Europe corridor, common alternatives include SGS, Intertek, TÜV Rheinland, TÜV SÜD, SCS Global Services, and ERM. Capability and pricing vary by product category, operator relationships, and whether the provider offers both LCA modeling and verification coordination. Shortlists often come down to who can mobilize data collection with minimal plant disruption and who knows the prevalent PCR for your category in your target market.

Practical checklist before you engage

Ask for the intended PCR and operator up front, plus the reference year, number of SKUs, and plants included. Request a sample data template and an example verifier comment log, since that reveals how issues get closed. Confirm whether background datasets and scenario modeling are included, and whether publication in English plus any local language is part of the base scope. Finally, align on renewal timing and how updated PCR versions will be handled so your EPD does not bump into a surprise rewrite near expiration. That saves everyone from a last‑minute scramble that nobody enjoys.

The market lens

EPDs remain a recognized path in building rating systems, and their five‑year validity means one well‑managed project can support several bid cycles if data quality is strong and the PCR is chosen wisely (EPD International FAQ, 2025). If your commercial team is hearing more requests for enviromental product data, plan capacity on your side for the upfront data pull. It is the longest pole in the tent, regardless of who you hire.