A successful sustainability reporting season starts way before the first data request reaches a portfolio company’s inbox. Investors need time to decide what they need, prepare companies to respond, review submissions, and resolve documentation gaps before the data is used for LP reporting or other disclosures.
The most useful preparation for the ESG reporting season focuses on where reporting tends to slow down: unclear requests, missing data, inconsistent answers, or too little time for review.
Novata’s Sustainability Reporting Guide covers the broader reporting process. The seven practices below focus on how investors can run the reporting cycle more effectively.
When is sustainability reporting season?
Sustainability reporting season starts before portfolio collection opens and continues through review, data corrections, and final reporting.
Investor preparation often begins between September and November. Many EMEA reporting cycles launch around November, while US cycles commonly open between January and March to align with financial reporting calendars.
LP requests, reporting frameworks, regulatory obligations, and portfolio company calendars each set their own submission timing. The ESG Data Convergence Initiative (EDCI), for example, asks participating GPs to report annually, with the next submission deadline on April 30, 2027. Meanwhile, the GRESB Assessment cycle runs from April 1 to July 1 each year.
1. Finalize reporting scope before you configure the request
The reporting framework should be settled before the team starts configuring it. Building while the metric list is still changing creates rework internally and increases the risk of a larger, less focused request reaching portfolio companies.
A useful starting point is to separate metrics according to what the firm actually needs from them:
- Required now: Needed for a current LP request, framework, regulation, or firm report.
- Decision-useful: Expected to inform portfolio analysis or engagement.
- Developmental: Worth building the capability to report, but not essential this cycle.
- Out of scope: No clear use in the current reporting process.
The same review should happen year over year. Reporting frameworks can accumulate metrics because adding a question is easier than removing one. Over several cycles, that framework creep can leave portfolio companies answering questions that no longer have a clear downstream use.
Teams can reduce later-stage changes by agreeing on a limited number of framework review rounds and setting a point after which the metric list is considered final.
Investors participating in EDCI can also review Novata’s summary of the EDCI 2026 guidance updates before finalizing the current request.
Keep a short change log once the questionnaire is agreed. If a new request has to be added, record why it matters and which portfolio companies it affects. The record makes it easier to decide whether the metric still belongs in next year’s framework.
2. Build the reporting calendar backward from when the data must be ready
The portfolio company deadline should leave room for review and follow-up, so timelines work backward from the date the data needs to be ready, instead of forward from when the request goes out.
| Milestone | Question to answer |
|---|---|
| Final use | When must the data be ready? |
| Internal review | When do reviewers need a complete dataset? |
| Corrections | When must portfolio follow-up finish? |
| First checkpoint | When will late or incomplete submissions be flagged? |
| Portfolio launch | How much collection time remains? |
Table 1: Working backward from the reporting deadline
Building in the review window is important because a wrong unit or unexplained year-over-year change may only become obvious after a questionnaire is complete, and the team still needs time to take those questions back to the company before the final deadline.
The same backwards-planning logic should account for the time portfolio companies need before submission. The people responsible for the requested data may already be responding to other investors or internal reporting requirements during the same period.
Giving companies an early preview of the agreed metric list can create that preparation window without opening the formal reporting cycle earlier. By the time the reporting season launches, contributors can already know what information they will need and where it is likely to come from, leaving more of the collection period for completing the request and resolving genuine questions.
3. Give every stage an owner and document the process
Assign a named owner to each stage of reporting so the program does not depend on one person carrying the process in their head.
Ownership should cover:
- framework build and configuration;
- launch and portfolio communication;
- portfolio company support;
- review and follow-up;
- final sign-off.
A written project plan can show when internal teams or external partners need to contribute and what has to happen before the cycle moves forward.
Methodology decisions belong in that record as well. Reporting boundaries, calculation methods, accepted estimates, and evidence requirements should be documented as they are agreed, so a new team member or assurance provider can retrace the approach later.
A short record for each priority metric can capture the definition, reporting period, source owner, method, and supporting evidence so that the next reporting team doesn’t have to reconstruct decisions in the next cycle. Novata’s guidance on overcoming ESG reporting challenges in private markets covers assurance alongside other reporting considerations.
4. Earn portfolio company participation before launch
Portfolio companies are more likely to respond when they understand the request before collection opens. The pre-launch work should remove the questions that otherwise turn into delays during the cycle.
Three areas deserve more attention before launch:
- Explain the purpose of data collection: The welcome message should say why the data is being collected and how the investor expects to use it.
- Send metrics to the right people: Pre-assigned questions can reach the contributors who know the underlying data instead of leaving one generic contact to route the full framework.
- Train for the request: Training can cover the framework and metric definitions alongside platform navigation, so companies understand what they are being asked to report.
First-time reporters may need earlier support because they have not yet learned how much internal coordination the request requires.
Office hours are also more useful when they match the reporting calendar. Multiple group sessions early in the cycle may attract little attendance, while fewer sessions around points when questions are more likely to arise can be easier for companies to use. Bookable one-to-one slots can cover companies that cannot attend.
Novata’s guidance on driving ESG performance through effective portfolio engagement covers additional ways investors can improve portfolio company participation.
5. Monitor engagement throughout the reporting cycle
The reporting team can use engagement data to distinguish companies that have not started from those that have started but appear to be stuck. Those situations call for different follow-up.
| Reporting status | Useful response |
|---|---|
| Not started | Confirm the right contact and send a clear reminder |
| In progress | Continue monitoring without unnecessary chasing |
| Progress has stalled | Check whether a metric, definition, or source-data issue is blocking completion |
| Submitted | Move the company into review |
Table 2: Reporting status and the follow-up it may require
Routine reminders can be handled through in-platform nudges, leaving direct outreach for companies that appear to need help.
A proactive mid-cycle check-in is particularly useful for first-time reporters, who may be encountering the process for the first time without raising a question themselves. Addressing those issues before the deadline is more useful than adding them to a blanket reminder later.
6. Check unusual or inconsistent data first
Review time is better spent on answers that show signs of an error or methodology change than on treating every completed field as equally risky.
Useful review flags include:
- a large change from the previous reporting period;
- a unit that does not match the request;
- one answer that conflicts with another;
- a changed reporting period or boundary;
- a missing value for a priority metric.
A large year-over-year movement may be valid, but it still needs an explanation before the data moves into final reporting. A changed boundary or different calculation method can also make an otherwise complete figure difficult to compare.
The EDCI validation process uses similar checks across internal consistency, methodology, units, and year-over-year changes.
Review criteria are easier to apply consistently when the main flags are agreed before submissions arrive. Different reviewers can then identify the same types of issue without deciding case by case what looks unusual.
Keep gaps and estimates identifiable
A shared set of data statuses gives companies and reviewers the same definitions to use once collection opens.
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Reported | Based on primary company information |
| Estimated | Calculated using an agreed method |
| Unavailable | Cannot be produced for the reporting period |
| Not applicable | Does not apply to the company or reporting boundary |
Table 3: Data status definitions for missing or estimated values
IFRS guidance recognizes that estimates may be necessary in sustainability-related financial disclosures while requiring transparency around the inputs and methods used.
Keep estimated or proxy values identifiable after aggregation, so a reviewer can still tell them apart from company-reported figures once the data rolls up.
Novata’s guidance on reporting considerations for Scope 3 emissions covers some of the challenges involved in building complete emissions data over time.
Give portfolio companies a reason to engage again next year
Portfolio companies that submit data and receive nothing in return have little reason to see reporting as valuable to them. A benchmark readout, relevant peer comparison, or short summary of what the portfolio data showed can make the exchange more useful.
Recurring problems are also worth recording while the cycle is still fresh. Repeated confusion around one metric may call for a clearer definition, while a recurring data gap may need a different source process.
Investors reviewing which metrics deserve priority next year can also use Novata’s 2026 ESG Metrics Guide.
How Novata supports reporting season
Running through all seven of these steps by hand, across spreadsheets and email threads, is what turns reporting season into a fire drill every year.
Novata’s Sustainability Reporting Platform brings sustainability data and reporting workflows into one place, helping investors standardize metrics, track portfolio company progress, and catch data issues before they reach the final report.
Teams that need hands-on support can work with Novata Advisory on metric selection, data quality, reporting, or portfolio programs.
Set up the next reporting season before this one closes
A better reporting season comes from fixing the points that created unnecessary work in the current one. Capture those lessons while they are still clear, then use them to shape the next cycle. From here, you can:
- Watch Novata’s webinar on the reporting season for practical guidance on preparing for the next reporting cycle.
- Download Novata’s 2026 ESG Metrics Guide to see which sustainability metrics investors are requesting.
- Speak with Novata Advisory about reporting readiness, portfolio engagement, and how we are leveraging AI-powered solutions to drive efficiency and insights.
FAQ
Preparation should begin before portfolio collection opens, with enough time to confirm the request and protect a review window. The right lead time grows with portfolio size and reporting complexity, and shrinks when the earliest downstream deadline is already close.
A consistent core dataset can improve comparability, but additional metrics may reflect the company, sector, or reporting requirement. Investors get the comparability benefit by standardizing the core dataset, not by asking every company for data that has no clear use.
The team can record the metric as unavailable, not applicable, or estimated using an approved method. Keeping those outcomes distinct helps reviewers understand where each number in the portfolio dataset came from.
Investors should avoid changing the request once collection has started, unless the new information is necessary. If a change cannot wait, the team should document why it was added and clearly tell affected companies what is required.
100% completion shows that every field has been addressed, not that the data is accurate. Important values still need checks for unusual changes, incorrect units, inconsistent answers, or methods that differ from the agreed approach.
