Solution
For ESG analysts, stewardship teams, and sustainability officers at asset managers, banks, and insurers: disclosure data extracted, framework-mapped, and cited to the page it came from.
The problem
Emissions figures sit in appendices, in the company's own units, formatted differently every year. Covering a universe means senior analysts doing data entry.
CSRD, TCFD, GRI, and ISSB requirements shift, and every change becomes a re-tagging project across the whole coverage universe.
A net-zero commitment sits beside capital expenditure that says otherwise, and nobody has time to hold both sources up against each other.
The product, not a promise
How it works
Sustainability reports, proxy statements, and supplier audits load in any format, scanned or digital.
Agents pull quantitative metrics and separate them from qualitative aspirations.
Units convert, periods align, and data lands in one model regardless of how the company reported it.
Metrics align automatically to CSRD, TCFD, SASB, GRI, and ISSB requirements.
Analysts review flagged gaps and inconsistencies, with every number one click from its source.
Who it's for
ESG analyst
Head of stewardship
Compliance & audit
The metric you need is on page 187 of a sustainability PDF, in a footnote, in the company’s own units. Multiply that by a coverage universe and a set of frameworks that change every year, and ESG analysis becomes a data-entry job that senior analysts do badly because nobody can do it well by hand.
The workbench ingests sustainability reports, proxy statements, annual reports, and supplier audits, and extracts the ESG data buried in them — emissions figures, diversity statistics, governance policies, Scope 3 estimates. It distinguishes a measured metric from a stated ambition, converts units, tracks history, and structures everything into one model, however the company chose to report it. Framework alignment happens in the same pass: extracted metrics map to CSRD, TCFD, SASB, GRI, and ISSB requirements, so a new regulation becomes a portfolio scan — which holdings are missing which required disclosures — instead of a re-tagging project.
Self-reported highlights are where greenwashing lives. Because the workbench holds both the pledges and the numbers, it flags the gaps between them: a net-zero commitment beside capital expenditure that says otherwise, a policy statement with no metric behind it. Analysts see the inconsistency with both sources cited and decide what it means.
Every metric links to the page and sentence it came from — click a number, see the disclosure. Flagged items route to a human steward before they enter reporting, and the review trail — source, extraction, reviewer — stays attached to the data for as long as you hold it. That is what makes a rating defensible to an auditor, a regulator, or an investment committee.
Objections, answered
Every extracted metric links to the page and sentence it came from, so verification is a click, and anything the platform is less confident about routes to a human steward before it enters reporting. Accuracy is checkable per number rather than asserted per report.
Keep it. The workbench delivers structured, cited metrics; your scoring rules and weightings consume them. Framework mapping to CSRD, TCFD, SASB, GRI, and ISSB runs alongside your methodology, so regulatory coverage and proprietary scoring come from the same data.
That is the design constraint. Each metric carries its source citation and its review trail — who extracted it, who verified it, when — for as long as you hold the data. A challenged number answers with the company's own disclosure.
Ingestion starts with the reports you already hold — any format, scanned or digital — and runs continuously as new disclosures publish. Your analysts review flagged items from the first batch onward; there is no tagging project standing between you and the data.
Watch the workbench pull the metrics, map them to CSRD, and flag where the pledges and the numbers disagree.
Request a demo