Corrections and review requests

If a Company Screener assessment concerns your organization, we invite you to identify a concern and provide information that may improve the record. This can include:

• the correct legal entity or corporate relationship;
• current information about a product, service, contract, or business activity;
• evidence that an activity has changed or ended;
• missing context about dates, scope, or materiality; or
• a primary source that supports a different interpretation.

Please identify your relationship to the company. Company-provided information is useful evidence, but it is reviewed for specificity, date, scope, and consistency with other sources. No fee, commercial relationship, or request guarantees a particular outcome.

We welcome collaboration with NGOs, academics, industry experts, affected-community organizations, and other groups with relevant subject-matter knowledge. Useful contributions may include:

• traceable research and source material;
• feedback on activity definitions and screen boundaries;
• industry, geographic, technical, or regulatory context;
• emerging issues that may require a methodology review; and
• suggestions for making assessments easier to understand.

Contributors should disclose relevant funding, affiliations, and conflicts. Collaboration does not provide control over an assessment. Evidence and methodology suggestions are reviewed through the same independent process used for other submissions.

A useful request should identify:

• the company and, if applicable, the relevant subsidiary;
• the screen, activity, or data field being challenged;
• the requested change and why it is appropriate;
• a link to supporting evidence, preferably an authoritative or primary source;
• the publication date and relevant excerpt; and
• the requester’s relationship to the company or assessment.

Credible specialist sources may also be submitted. Where possible, include the underlying primary material on which the specialist source relies.

1. The request is recorded with its supporting information.
2. A reviewer checks relevance, source authority, specificity, recency, ownership context, and consistency with other evidence.
3. The reviewer may request more information, reject the request, or approve a correction or re-evaluation.
4. If the evidence supports a material change, the assessment is updated through the review workflow.

We do not publish a universal response time. Priority and timing may depend on materiality, evidence quality, client arrangements, and the complexity of the review.

Approved changes should record who reviewed the request, when the action occurred, which evidence or policy supported it, and which earlier decision it superseded.

Prior records may remain available for auditability, legal obligations, and historical explanation. A correction does not necessarily mean every earlier decision was unreasonable based on the information available at that time.

Read the screening methodology for the evidence, ownership, outcome, and qualifier framework.

A request to access or correct personal information about an individual is handled under the privacy process rather than the assessment-review process. Send privacy requests to privacy@thecompanyscreener.com.

Signed-in clients may use the service’s evidence, correction, or re-evaluation workflow. Companies, research organizations, and other contributors may send requests or collaboration enquiries to corrections@thecompanyscreener.com.