The starting position
EMCL ran two separate client engagements.
- Client 1, steel processing, Kwara State. The business needed coordinated sustainability data collection and reporting.
- Client 2, quarry operations, Oyo State. The business needed organised data collection and a sustainability report.
In both, the information EMCL needed sat with the client's finance, procurement, facilities, human resources and environmental teams, in different formats and locations. Each engagement began with requests to those teams, checks on what came back, and follow-ups on what did not, before any analysis could start.
What was collected, and how
The approach that did not work was the default one: requests sent by email, and records returned as separate files.
EMCL moved the work onto Emvert, which it used to:
Track data ownership
see who was responsible for providing each piece of information.
Monitor completion
see which reporting inputs were complete and which were still outstanding.
Coordinate data collection
keep information in one place and make follow-ups easier to manage.
Support internal controls
see who was responsible for each activity and how far it had progressed.
Prepare the report
use the collected information directly when drafting.
EMCL kept responsibility for the professional judgement, review and advice in each engagement. The platform held the data and the record of who owned it.
What went wrong
The hard part was keeping track of who was responsible for each reporting input, what had been completed, and whether internal controls were being followed. In both engagements, those gaps slowed data collection and validation, and carried through into report preparation.
In practice, four tasks took the time:
Ownership
Tracking who was responsible for each data point.
Progress
Identifying who had completed what.
Follow-up
Following up on missing information.
Controls
Making sure internal controls were followed.
The numbers
About 50%
less time on data collection, coordination and report preparation
2
client engagements: steel processing and quarrying
2
stages of the work the figure covers
Across the two engagements, EMCL reported about 50% less time on two stages of the work: data collection and coordination, and report preparation. The figure covers those two stages in those two engagements. It is not a measured saving across every engagement, and it is not a promise for other companies.
There is no footprint in this case study. EMCL is a consultancy, and the emissions figures belong to its clients, who are not named here.
Working with Emvert has helped us organise the information we collect from clients and keep track of who is responsible for providing it. Across two client engagements, we saw reporting time reduce by approximately half at the data collection and report preparation stages. This allows us to spend less time coordinating information manually and more time focusing on the quality and interpretation of the results.
What the two engagements show
Reporting time depends on more than writing the final report. It depends on how information is collected, how responsibilities are assigned, how progress is tracked and how internal controls are managed. Those were the steps EMCL organised in Emvert, and they are where the time came back.
They are also the steps the FRC asks about. SRG 1 (2026) lists clear ownership of sustainability data, validation checks and audit trails among the internal controls a reporting entity must evidence. Both sectors also have their own environmental rules: NESREA lists separate regulations for quarrying and blasting operations, and for base metals, iron and steel manufacturing and recycling.
If you are a consultancy, see how Emvert works with advisers and their clients. If you are preparing your own first cycle, start with the readiness assessment.