Three sidesof the same reporting season.
The fund owns the deadline, the portfolio company holds the data, and the LP has to add it all up. Each has a different problem — pick yours.
General partners
You own the deadline.Not the spreadsheet.
The LP letter arrives in January and the statement is due in June. In between sit twenty-two companies, four of which have no idea what Scope 2 is. This is the part of the year Matteriality is built for.
What lands on your desk
- The LP request.Different for each LP, arriving in a different shape, all wanting the same underlying numbers.
- The regulatory deadline.The PAI statement by 30 June, on the calendar year, with the prior period beside it.
- The IC and the board.Who want a narrative, not a workbook — and who will ask where a number came from.
What actually changes
| Today | With Matteriality |
|---|---|
| A spreadsheet per company, versioned by email | One campaign, one workspace per company, answers timestamped |
| Chase everyone because you cannot see who is behind | Live completion per company, per dimension, per question |
| Rebuild the consolidation by hand each year | Same indicator keys year on year — reopen and compare |
| PAI computed in a separate model | Computed from the answers already collected plus period financials |
| Reformat everything for the board | The board PDF is an output, not a project |
“My portfolio companies will not answer. They never do.”
Response rates collapse when a company is sent a hundred questions, forty of which do not apply to it. We scope by sector and NACE code so a software company is not asked about hazardous waste, split questions across finance, HR and operations so no single person is blocked, and put every question in the respondent's own language. Then the advisory team chases with you — that is included, not an upsell.
What you use
Campaigns
One reporting period across all three pillars, reopenable and comparable year on year.
Portfolio dashboard
Completion and red flags by company, fund and GP, with the benchmark alongside.
SFDR PAI & EDCI
Annex I Table 1 and the EDCI submission from the same answers, with coverage stated per indicator.
Board reporting
A designed multi-page PDF per fund or per company, in English or French.
Bring us your next reporting season.
Thirty minutes, your actual portfolio, and a specimen report built from a dataset that looks like yours.
Portfolio companies
You did not askfor a sustainability department.
Your investor needs ESG data and you have a finance director with a full week already. The goal here is not to make you enjoy the questionnaire. It is to make it answerable in an afternoon, and to leave you with something you can use afterwards.
What usually goes wrong
- The questionnaire does not fit you.A hundred questions arrive, forty about hazardous waste and process emissions you do not have.
- It lands on one person.Usually the CFO, who does not hold the meter readings, the payroll breakdown or the HR policies.
- It is asked again in six months.In a different shape, by a different party, wanting the same numbers.
What we do differently
| Usual questionnaire | Here |
|---|---|
| One list sent to every company | Scoped by your sector and NACE code — irrelevant questions are not shown |
| English only | Every question in French or English, question by question |
| One recipient, one deadline | Questions assigned to finance, HR and operations separately |
| No idea what a good answer looks like | Guidance and units on the questions that need it |
| You send the data and hear nothing | You keep the carbon footprint and the report generated from it |
“Why should we spend a week on our investor's homework?”
Because it stops being only theirs. The footprint you produce is yours to reuse — in tenders where a client asks for your carbon data, in a bank's sustainability-linked terms, in your own recruitment. Companies increasingly get asked for these numbers by customers rather than investors, and the first time is always the expensive one. Doing it properly once, with help, is cheaper than doing it badly three times.
What you get
Your own workspace
Your answers, your documents, your history — separate from every other company in the portfolio.
A carbon footprint
Scopes 1, 2 and 3 across your sites, computed from activity data you already have on invoices and meters.
A report you can send on
The same designed PDF your investor receives, about your company, in your language.
Next year is shorter
Answers carry forward. You confirm or update rather than starting from a blank sheet.
Been sent a questionnaire?
If your investor uses Matteriality, your workspace is already waiting. If something in it does not apply to you, tell us — that is a scoping error on our side, not yours.
Limited partners
You can only aggregatewhat was defined the same way.
You hold twenty funds and receive twenty formats. The problem is rarely that a GP refuses to report — it is that each one computes intensity on a different denominator, states no coverage, and cannot show where a number came from when you ask.
Where portfolio-level reporting breaks
- Different denominators.One GP attributes on enterprise value including cash, another on equity value. The totals are not addable.
- Silent coverage.A figure presented as portfolio-wide that actually covers eleven of twenty-two companies, unstated.
- No provenance.You ask how a number was produced and the answer takes six weeks and three intermediaries.
What to ask for
| Ask for this | Because |
|---|---|
| SFDR PAI on Annex I, Table 1, with the prior period | It is the only template every EU manager already has to produce |
| Coverage stated per indicator | A 78% figure and a 100% figure should not sit in the same column unlabelled |
| EVIC as the attribution basis, named explicitly | Financed emissions move by a factor, not a percentage, if this differs |
| EDCI metrics where the GP participates | Gives you a sector cohort to read the number against |
| The methodology behind any carbon figure | Bilan Carbone and GHG Protocol totals are not comparable without restatement |
“Our LPs each want something slightly different.”
They mostly want the same underlying numbers in a shape they can add up. A GP running on Matteriality collects once against a dataset built for the fund, then produces the PAI statement, the EDCI submission and the LP consolidation from those same answers — with coverage stated per indicator and every figure traceable to the company, the question and the respondent. If you are an LP asking your managers for this, that is the standard worth asking for, whoever they run it on.
What arrives
SFDR PAI statement
Annex I, Table 1, with the prior period beside it and coverage stated per indicator.
EDCI submission
The core metric set, on the definitions the initiative publishes, ready for the annual cycle.
Consolidation workbook
Indicator-level export in XLSX, on stable keys, so your own model can read it year after year.
Traceable figures
Every number resolves to the company, the question, the respondent and the evidencing document.
Asking your managers for better data?
We work with LPs on what to specify in side letters and annual requests so the answers come back comparable. Thirty minutes, no pitch.