If you have run a manual reporting cycle, you already know that the calculation is not the hard part. The arithmetic is a multiplication. The hard part is everything around it.
It is emailing the Kano site for the third time. It is discovering in March that the Agbara generator log was kept on a clipboard that has since been thrown away. It is the supplier who sends a figure in the wrong unit, and the one who sends a scanned photograph of a handwritten note. It is finding that the workbook you built last year has four versions in circulation and nobody knows which one the board saw.
That work is not optional and it does not disappear. What changes is whether it is structured. A structured cycle turns chasing into a status list, turns unit errors into validation flags, and turns the annual workbook rebuild into a rollover.
Each facility, department and meter has its own place to record consumption. A site manager enters their own reading; you see status rather than chase it.
A reading outside a plausible range for that site is flagged for review rather than quietly entering the total — which is how a decimal point becomes a board-level embarrassment.
Send a structured request, see who has answered, chase from a list. Fall back to a spend-based estimate for those who cannot, with the basis recorded.
Nigerian grid and fuel factors applied on entry, with the factor and version recorded. No lookup table to maintain, no risk of two people using two versions.
Sites, meters, suppliers, methods and templates carry forward. The second cycle is a fraction of the first, which is where the time you get back actually comes from.
One dataset renders as a disclosure, a filing copy and a board summary. They cannot disagree with each other.
Most carbon accounting software assumes continuous grid supply. You enter kilowatt-hours, it applies a grid factor, and it produces a Scope 2 figure.
That model breaks on a Nigerian site. Every hour on a generator is an hour that moves emissions out of Scope 2 and into Scope 1, at a completely different factor. A site that runs on grid power for eight hours and diesel for the rest has a materially different split from one that runs mostly on grid — and a tool that never asks the question will report both identically.
So the intake has to treat generation as a first-class input rather than an afterthought: litres per generator, per period, with delivery notes attached. That is the single most important structural difference between a platform built for this market and one adapted to it.
Yes, with a column mapping you set up once and reuse. Imported figures carry a note that they came from a spreadsheet rather than a source document, so your assurance provider can see the difference between a figure with a bill behind it and one without. That distinction is worth preserving rather than hiding.
That is the most common failure mode in any rollout, and it is usually a design problem rather than a people problem. Their view is one screen with the fields that apply to their site and nothing else — no dashboards, no reports, no navigation. If it takes longer than filling in the email you currently send them, it will not be used, and that is the bar it has to clear.
Record it as an omission with a reason, or estimate it with the method disclosed. Both are legitimate disclosures. Silently leaving a gap is the only option that is not.
No. It removes the measurement and reporting overhead so there is time left for the strategy work — which is, presumably, why you took the job.
A summary of a regulation is not the regulation. These are the primary documents this page is based on.
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.
