Purpose and limits
Company screening should answer a bounded question: whether available evidence supports that a specific company meets a defined policy rule at a stated point in time.
The methodology is designed to make that answer reproducible. It does not replace a client’s legal interpretation, fiduciary judgment, investment mandate, or responsibility for setting and approving policy.
The decision record
Every screening determination should preserve enough context for a different reviewer to retrace what was decided and why.
- 01The policy rule or screen definition applied
- 02The Canonical Company and relevant ownership pathway
- 03The business activity assessed
- 04The decision and plain-language rationale
- 05The sources used, their dates, and their role
- 06Confidence, uncertainty, and missing information
- 07Reviewer state and subsequent changes
Evidence standard
Evidence is assessed for authority, directness, specificity, recency, and consistency. A source’s role in discovery is kept distinct from its role in the final decision.
Credible specialist sources are permitted. Company Screener records why a source is appropriate and captures its underlying primary evidence when that evidence is available.
Regulatory and government records
Examples: Company filings, regulator databases, legislation, supervisory material, public procurement, and official registries.
Treatment: Preferred for decisive claims when the record directly addresses the company, activity, ownership, or revenue.
Official company materials
Examples: Annual reports, investor materials, product pages, subsidiary disclosures, and company-issued statements.
Treatment: Useful primary evidence, evaluated for date, specificity, completeness, and whether the statement is promotional.
Credible specialist sources
Examples: Well-sourced NGO, academic, industry, and journalistic material that identifies its underlying evidence.
Treatment: Allowed when the source is credible, specific, current, and traceable. It may support a decision directly when it is the best available evidence; underlying primary evidence should also be captured when available.
Entity and ownership scope
The company being screened and the entity conducting the activity are not always the same. The ownership pathway must be recorded before applying a client’s inclusion rule.
| Relationship | Review question | Default treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Direct operations | Does the Canonical Company conduct the activity itself? | Assess the company’s own products, services, contracts, and reported business segments. |
| Controlled entity (≥50%) | Does the company own at least 50% of, or otherwise control, an entity conducting the activity? | Company Screener treats the activity as controlled involvement by default and records the ownership or contractual basis for control. |
| Associated company or joint venture (20%–<50%) | Does the company hold at least 20% but less than 50% without exercising control? | Company Screener records the relationship as associated involvement by default and keeps it distinct from controlled operations. |
| Passive holding (<20%) | Is the company’s interest below 20% without other evidence of significant influence? | Company Screener treats the holding as passive by default and does not classify it as operational involvement unless other evidence or the governing policy requires it. |
These 50% and 20% thresholds are Company Screener defaults. A governing policy or regulation may replace them, and evidence of contractual or practical control can override a percentage-only classification.
Read the corporate involvement methodologyOutcomes and qualifiers
An evaluated screen has one of two outcomes. Workflow and evidence conditions are recorded separately so they do not become competing decisions.
Involvement identified
Available evidence supports that the company meets the screen’s inclusion rule.
No involvement identified
The completed review did not identify evidence meeting the rule. This is not a universal claim that no involvement exists.
Not yet evaluated
A neutral placeholder used until the screen receives either of the two outcomes. It is not an assessment result.
Qualifiers
Important information is missing or not sufficiently specific to support an outcome.
Credible sources point to materially different interpretations or facts.
The prior evidence is no longer current enough for the screen’s review policy.
A new source, suggestion, policy change, or quality concern requires another review.
“Review required” preserves the latest outcome while signalling that it must be revisited. Evidence qualifiers explain why a new outcome may not yet be supportable.
Review and change history
New evidence, a policy change, a quality concern, or an authorized suggestion may trigger a new review. The prior determination should remain available rather than being overwritten without explanation.
A material change should record who made it, when it was made, what evidence or policy prompted it, and which earlier decision it supersedes.
The audit trail is part of the assessment, not an administrative by-product. Suggestions and moderator actions should be visible as events in that history.
Contribute to assessment quality
Better company assessments depend on clear correction channels and informed, traceable evidence. We welcome relevant information from companies we evaluate and collaboration with organizations that have specialist knowledge.
Companies we evaluate
If an assessment concerns your company, we invite you to raise a concern, clarify an entity or ownership relationship, or provide current evidence about products, services, activities, or material changes.
Submit information or a concernNGOs and specialist knowledge groups
We welcome collaboration on activity definitions, source discovery, industry context, emerging issues, and methodological feedback that can make evaluations more accurate and transparent.
Discuss research collaborationContributions are reviewed under the same evidence methodology. A submission does not automatically change an assessment, and a contributor does not receive control over the outcome. Relevant relationships and conflicts should be disclosed.