Prepare an ESG consultant brief that makes proposals comparable

Ask prospective advisers to respond to the same defined output, evidence boundary and acceptance conditions. Compare who will do the work, what inputs they need and what you will receive. A proposal labelled “ESG support” can describe very different tasks.

This guide is for business owners, finance and reporting teams commissioning advisory or preparation work. It helps make the scope reviewable. It does not recommend a particular supplier, set market prices or replace review of the engagement's commercial and legal terms.

Name the decision or deliverable first

Write one sentence describing what you need and who will use it. Examples include a management-review draft of selected disclosures, an emissions inventory within an agreed boundary, or a findings register from a specified document review. List additional outputs separately rather than expecting one label to include them all.

Identify the reporting request or basis and why it is being used. If the work refers to GRI, specify the intended reporting approach and the work needed to support it. “In accordance with” and “with reference to” involve different requirements; a consultant's proposal or an index by itself does not establish either claim. GRI 1: Foundation 2021

Separate preparation from any independent conclusion you need. The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard supports preparation of a verifiable inventory but does not prescribe the verification process. An inventory-preparation deliverable should therefore not be treated as an independent verification opinion. GHG Protocol Corporate Standard overview

Give every adviser the same starting information

• The business question, intended user and requested deliverables.

• The legal entities, sites, activities and reporting dates in scope.

• Existing reports, sample data structures and known gaps.

• The internal owners available to supply information and make decisions.

• Required formats, editable files, source references and handover needs.

• Target milestones, dependencies and any separate provider's requirements.

• Confidentiality, authorised access and restrictions on sharing or using the records.

Use a non-confidential outline and appropriately sanitised samples for initial scoping. Agree the permitted recipients and transfer arrangements before sharing restricted records. Do not circulate a previous adviser's proprietary workbook or client references without the right to do so.

Ask for an explicit response to the work

For each output, ask the adviser to state the method, inputs, tasks included, exclusions, responsible people and acceptance evidence. Clarify whether the client or adviser cleans data, follows up missing records, performs calculations, drafts the narrative and resolves review comments. Ask how assumptions and changes in scope will be documented.

Request a realistic explanation of availability and dependencies. Check relevant experience through information the adviser is entitled to provide. A redacted sample can show how they organise evidence and limitations; a claimed credential should be checked with its issuing body where relevant. Neither a badge nor an impressive report cover establishes that the proposed team will perform the work you need.

Compare fees only after identifying material scope differences. Ask for applicable taxes, expenses, payment milestones, revision limits and any continuing software or access costs to be made clear in the actual proposal. This guide supplies no benchmark fee or assumed commercial term.

A fictional comparison for an electricity-data work package

A business wants a reviewable electricity schedule for three sites over twelve months. That creates 36 expected site-month positions, not necessarily 36 documents. Its current schedule contains 30 positions, leaving six to investigate. This is one data work package, not a complete greenhouse-gas inventory.

Two fictional proposals responding to the same request

Input responsibility

Proposal A: Client supplies reconciled annual totals.

Proposal B: Adviser reviews the agreed monthly schedule and records queries.

Missing positions

Proposal A: Investigation is outside the stated scope.

Proposal B: The six gaps are tracked with owners and proposed treatment for client review.

Handover

Proposal A: Narrative summary based on supplied totals.

Proposal B: Editable schedule, source references, checks and unresolved items.

If the client needs a reproducible schedule and cannot perform the reconciliation internally, Proposal A leaves a required task unassigned. Ask for clarification or an amended scope before comparing the offers. Proposal B describes more of that task, but its method, competence, access needs and acceptance conditions still require review.

The six missing positions remain unknown until resolved; they must not become six zero-consumption months for convenience. A polished narrative cannot settle them. Conversely, if the client already has an adequately reviewed schedule and only needs writing support, a narrower proposal may fit. The decision follows the actual work needed, not a rule that the longer proposal wins.

Two fictional scopes for the same request. A uses client-reconciled annual totals, excludes gap investigation and hands over a narrative summary. B reviews the monthly schedule, tracks the six gaps for client review and hands over an editable schedule with references, checks and unresolved items. A narrower scope may fit writing-only needs; the choice depends on the work required.

Agree how each output will be accepted

Make acceptance observable. For the fictional schedule, the client should be able to locate all 36 positions, identify missing or estimated entries, trace the supplied values to their source references and understand the checks and unresolved decisions. Record who will review it and how corrections will be handled. Acceptance of a preparation deliverable is not an assurance conclusion about every underlying record.

Before appointing an adviser, resolve material exclusions, client responsibilities, permitted reuse and ownership of outputs, access arrangements, review rounds, change handling and the end-of-project handover. Have the relevant internal owners review terms within their responsibilities. Do not assume that a proposal's use of “compliance”, “audit” or “certification” specifies a deliverable or establishes eligibility for an independent engagement.

Bring a defined request to Nitium

Nitium’s services describe the available preparation and advisory outputs and their starting inputs. Discuss your requirements with the output you need, entity and period, target date and current state of the information. Nitium agrees the scope and responsibilities with you; independent assessment or assurance opinions, legal opinions, certification and specialist scenario modelling are outside the services described.

Sources checked 10 October 2026. The comparison is fictional and does not describe actual advisers, prices, client results or delivery promises.