Our framework, not a universal rule
There is no single ownership method that fits every accounting standard, law, investment mandate, or data provider. This page explains the Company Screener assessment framework. Its default bands are informed by materiality, likely control, and the ownership information companies commonly disclose. The current screens classify documented equity ownership and, where reliable information is available, voting rights.
What this framework does
The framework answers one question: what supported relationship connects the company being screened to the entity conducting an activity? It creates a consistent research record. It does not decide the client’s policy, legal conclusion, or investment response.
Relationship classification
Classify the pathway as direct, controlled, associated, joint venture, passive, or unresolved.
Screen evaluation
Apply the published activity criteria to the relevant company or connected entity.
Client decision
The client applies its own policy, legal interpretation, exceptions, and required action. Company Screener does not make this decision.
Default relationship bands
These bands are Company Screener defaults for consistent assessment. They use documented equity ownership and, where reliable information is available, voting rights. Broader governance or contractual-control information can identify a limitation, but does not currently create a separate screen.
Direct operations
No ownership threshold
Does the company itself conduct the activity through its products, services, contracts, facilities, or reported business segments?
Evaluate the company directly against the relevant activity screen and record the supporting evidence.
Controlled entity
50% or more equity ownership or voting rights
Does the company hold at least 50% of an entity’s equity or, where reliable information is available, at least 50% of its voting rights?
Treat the activity as controlled involvement by default and record the entity, percentage, ownership type, and supporting source.
Associated company or joint venture
20% to less than 50% equity ownership or voting rights
Does the company hold at least 20% but less than 50% of the entity’s equity or, where reliable information is available, its voting rights?
Record associated involvement by default, keeping the relationship distinct from controlled operations.
Passive holding
Below 20% equity ownership or voting rights
Is the documented equity interest, or voting interest where available, below 20%?
Record the holding as passive by default. Do not classify it as operational involvement unless other evidence or the applicable rule requires it.
Ten per cent is not a universal Company Screener involvement tier. A law or client policy may use it as a review trigger without changing the general relationship model. Public ownership information at this level can be incomplete or unavailable, particularly for private companies, indirect holdings, and jurisdictions with higher disclosure thresholds. Company Screener does not currently provide a dedicated 10% ownership screen.
See the Italy Law 220/2021 guideHow involvement is attributed
The objective is to preserve the pathway, not flatten a corporate group into one undifferentiated result.
Activity can flow upward through a recorded relationship
When a controlled or associated entity conducts an included activity, the parent assessment can identify involvement through that entity. The relationship type remains visible.
Activity does not automatically flow downward
A parent company activity is not automatically attributed to every subsidiary. The subsidiary must have its own activity or a supported relationship that brings the activity into scope.
Activity does not automatically flow across siblings
Two companies sharing a parent are not treated as conducting each other’s activities merely because they sit in the same corporate group.
The legal issuer still matters
A portfolio instrument should be connected to the correct issuer or counterparty before the relevant parent, subsidiary, associate, or joint venture pathway is assessed.
If a listed holding company owns 72% of an operating subsidiary that meets a production screen, the parent can receive an involvement-identified result through a controlled entity. The record should name the subsidiary and show the ownership evidence. Other subsidiaries are not automatically classified as producers.
Beyond percentages
Materiality is part of why Company Screener uses 50% and 20% as practical default boundaries. A majority interest is generally more likely to represent control and consolidated economic exposure. A 20% to less than 50% interest is more likely to be a meaningful associated investment, while an interest below 20% is more often a passive holding. These are consistent research tiers, not a claim that every relationship inside a band has the same importance.
Control beyond ownership percentage
Control and influence can depend on rights and facts beyond an ownership percentage. The indicators below help explain the limits of a percentage-only model and may prompt further review. However, the current corporate-involvement screens use documented ownership. They use equity ownership and may also use voting rights when reliable information is available. Company Screener does not currently infer a screened relationship from governance or contractual rights alone.
- Voting rights and the practical ability to direct relevant decisions
- Board appointment, removal, veto, or governance rights
- Shareholder agreements, contractual rights, or joint-control arrangements
- Consolidation or subsidiary treatment in audited financial statements
- Participation in policy decisions or other evidence of significant influence
- Changes in ownership, governance, or rights after the latest reporting date
Evidence and research limitations
An ownership conclusion is only as strong as the available record. We prefer current, specific, authoritative evidence and preserve conflicts or gaps instead of presenting unsupported precision.
Regulatory filings and registries
Ownership percentages, legal entities, voting securities, acquisitions, disposals, and formal control disclosures.
Audited reports and notes
Consolidated subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures, material interests, segment reporting, and changes during the period.
Official company materials
Current group structure, operating brands, transactions, governance, products, and management explanations.
Credible specialist sources
Ownership or operating context that is specific, current, traceable, and not adequately available in company reporting.
Public-information limitation
Research primarily relies on publicly available filings, registries, company disclosures, official records, and credible specialist sources. Undisclosed relationships or activities may not be discoverable.
Current coverage limitation
Company Screener’s company research coverage and public evaluation library are still being built. Some companies and screen combinations remain not evaluated.
Timing limitation
Ownership and governance can change between reporting dates. A filing can be authoritative for its period and still be out of date when a transaction closes later.
Structure limitation
Nominees, special-purpose entities, cross-holdings, state ownership, voting agreements, and layered joint ventures can make a percentage-only view incomplete.
Private companies are harder to evaluate
Private-company research often has fewer standardized, independently verifiable disclosures. The absence of a public record is weaker evidence than a current, specific disclosure.
- Financial statements and subsidiary lists may not be published.
- Beneficial ownership and voting arrangements may be unavailable or difficult to verify.
- Websites may be sparse, promotional, or no longer current.
- Revenue, segment, contract, and customer information may not be disclosed.
- Registry access and filing detail vary significantly by jurisdiction.
- A credible absence-of-involvement conclusion can require more cautious qualification.
Outcomes and uncertainty
Relationship evidence contributes to an activity-screen evaluation. It does not create extra decision outcomes. Workflow state and evidence limitations remain separate.
Not evaluated
Research for the company and activity screen has not been completed.
This is a workflow state, not an assessment outcome. It should not be interpreted as evidence that no involvement exists.
Involvement identified
Available evidence supports that the company meets an activity screen through a direct, controlled, or associated pathway.
The relationship pathway and evidence should be shown with the result. The outcome does not dictate the client’s investment action.
No involvement identified
A completed review did not identify evidence meeting the screen through an in-scope relationship.
This is not a universal claim that the activity does not exist. Evidence gaps, source limits, and the review date remain relevant.
Evidence incomplete, evidence conflicting, ownership uncertain, and review required are qualifiers or workflow conditions. They do not become competing involvement outcomes.
How clients should use it
A client should map this provider methodology to its own policy before relying on results. Where the client’s rule differs, the difference and the additional control should be documented.
If the default fits
Select the relevant screens and preserve the methodology and taxonomy version used.
If a law differs
Apply the law-specific control, ownership trigger, or escalation process outside the general default and record the legal interpretation.
If the client policy differs
Document the narrower or broader treatment and any supplemental review needed.
If evidence is insufficient
Do not convert missing information into no involvement identified. Keep the evaluation pending or qualified until the required review is complete.
Clients can filter and review companies using available relationship information. Changing a filter or selecting a different client threshold does not automatically change the underlying Company Screener evaluation. Re-evaluation requires a reviewed methodology or evidence decision.
References and methodology boundary
Accounting concepts of control and significant influence help inform this framework, but Company Screener is not making an accounting consolidation determination. The relevant facts and purpose of an assessment can require different treatment.