01
Set the review scope
Start with the mandate, policy, client requirement, or regulation. Record which published screens and available options are relevant to the review.
Solutions
For institutional investment managers
Screening decisions that stay connected to the record.
Review portfolios and focused company lists against published screens while keeping definitions, evidence, ownership context, review dates, and decision history available for scrutiny.
Investment workflow
From portfolio scope to documented review.
Company Screener supports the research and review record around an investment-screening decision. Each step remains inspectable instead of being reduced to an unexplained flag.
02
Bring the companies into view
Upload a portfolio or work with a focused company list. Resolve company matches before relying on the screening overview.
03
Review the result and evidence
Open the applicable company-screen record to inspect the activity, sources, ownership context, qualifiers, and review date behind the outcome.
04
Document the decision
Record the team’s interpretation, exceptions, action, and follow-up while preserving the screening result and its history.
Questions the record should answer
Make the result easier to challenge and explain.
A useful screening record makes the decision boundary, supporting information, uncertainty, and institutional response visible.
- QUESTION 01
Which published definition and criteria produced this result?
- QUESTION 02
Which company entity and activity are in scope?
- QUESTION 03
What evidence supports the outcome, and when was it reviewed?
- QUESTION 04
Does ownership or an associated-company relationship affect the analysis?
- QUESTION 05
What uncertainty, conflicting information, or follow-up remains?
- QUESTION 06
What did the investment institution decide, who reviewed it, and when?
Outcome and responsibility
The research outcome is not the investment decision.
Company Screener records whether involvement was identified under the published screen. The investment institution decides how its own policy and responsibilities apply.
Involvement identified
Available evidence supports the activity under the published definition and criteria, subject to recorded qualifiers.
No involvement identified
The reviewed evidence did not support involvement under the published screen. This is not a universal statement about the company.
Not evaluated
A company-screen pair without either final outcome remains a workflow placeholder. It should not be interpreted as clear, compliant, or free from involvement.
Important boundaries
Clear limits are part of a defensible process.
Company Screener treats transparency about scope, methodology, evidence, and known gaps as part of the control environment. When teams can see what the data covers, where it is limited, and why a result was reached, they can assess its fit with their policies and regulatory needs, involve compliance or legal reviewers where appropriate, and preserve a clearer basis for positions and decisions.
The client applies its policy
The client determines how its policy, legal interpretation, exceptions, and required actions apply to the result.
Research coverage is not universal
Company and screen coverage, evaluation maturity, and monitoring depend on the governed research scope and available information.
Some evidence is difficult to obtain
Private companies, layered ownership structures, and less transparent jurisdictions may not disclose enough information for a complete assessment.
Start with an existing screening process.
Bring a policy, portfolio workflow, or review problem. We can focus the demonstration on relevant implemented capabilities and identify where responsibility remains with your institution.