Longer than the quick score: governance, data, evidence, reporting and assurance examined properly, with a written gap analysis and a sequenced plan at the end.
The online readiness score takes three minutes and gives you a defensible sense of where you stand. For a company that has not started, that is usually all that is needed — the answer is ‘begin collecting’ and no amount of further assessment changes it.
The full assessment is for the situation where the answer is less obvious: a company that has been reporting voluntarily and does not know whether its existing work meets the mandate, a group that needs to know which of its entities are exposed, or a board that wants an independent read before committing budget.
Entities, sites, existing reporting, and what has prompted the assessment. Half an hour, and it determines whether the full version is worth doing at all.
We look at what you actually have: existing reports, collection processes, governance records, and a sample of the underlying evidence behind published figures.
Short conversations with the people who hold the data — facilities, finance, procurement, company secretary. This is where the real picture emerges.
Written, specific, and sequenced by what is most expensive to recover if left late rather than by what is easiest to fix.
Board and committee oversight, terms of reference, competencies, management accountability, and whether the record would support the governance disclosure the standards require.
Which entities are in scope, which consolidation approach, whether it matches the financial boundary, and whether joint ventures and leased assets are handled consistently.
Completeness of activity data across sites and categories, the grid versus generation split, and whether collection is running or would have to be reconstructed.
Whether figures trace to documents, whether factor versions are recorded, whether changes are retained — the three things that determine what assurance costs.
Whether you know which structure you file in, whether narrative sections exist, whether sign-off is defined, and whether an assurance provider has been engaged.
You get the findings whether or not you buy anything
The gap analysis is yours. If the conclusion is that your existing arrangements are adequate, or that a consultant is a better fit than a platform for your situation, that is what the document will say — and we will say it on the call as readily as in writing.
Fourteen questions across governance, data, evidence, reporting and assurance, scored the way an assurance provider would look at you, with your gaps ranked. If it tells you what you needed to know, you do not need us further.
Four questions, and you get the year you first file, the framework, and what to collect first.
Plain-language explainers of the FRC and SEC rules, ISSB S1 & S2, and what each asks you to disclose.
What a consultant-led reporting cycle costs against an annual licence, in Naira.
