Four functions ask every unit for the same kind of answer.

A factor for every account in the ledger since 2024, delivered as factor tables into the group's own Microsoft environment, with a note on every version change.

Scope 3 from purchase orders across a few hundred reporting units, read from the central spend source. A factor is chosen in a fixed order, supplier-specific, then weight-based, then spend-based, and every row carries a grade that says which it got and what would lift it. A specialist corrects a row at the unit or as a fix in the source and approves the unit's period by role, with every approval logged by name, and the sum goes to the group's sustainability system by unit, region and year. Specialists approve rows instead of retyping them, and the group can walk from a figure in the consolidation down to the purchase order line.

A group that grew by acquisition, with reporting companies on several continents, asked what it would take to reduce the manual effort in the environmental reporting its sites deliver every quarter, and what it would be worth. In a few weeks: one working session on Teams, one day on site, and interviews with a handful of units, where we read their own calculation files and followed a quarter from the first invoice to the figure sent up. A unit spent on the order of thirty hours a quarter on its indicators. Four of the five layers a solution needs were already built, by the units, in their own spreadsheets, and the group could receive none of it: what came up was one total per code. The basis for a decision went to group management within the quarter, with the units that carry the result, a first version in the group's own environment, what it takes from the group, its IT and us, and the business case in hours. The material is the group's.

A municipal group where every company counted its climate account its own way, and the requirement was one method with as little manual handling as possible. Open supplier ledgers from eight municipalities are mapped to factors, and the report itself is written in The Cards. Two things learned there are now in the method: the waste contractor's fraction names are agreed before the data is read, and the invoice coding decides how much a model can do. For municipalities, in Swedish.

Companies and municipalities writing their report under VSME or ESRS in The Cards.

A global industrial group that already reports Scope 3 this way asked for its second requirement on the same register, periods and approvals. Cases of misconduct and security incidents registered as they happen across every country, with a category that decides who may see them. Code of conduct training from the entities outside the learning platform, submitted per entity as a quarterly attestation with a name, a date and four eyes on the entity's side, and the group sees which entities have not reported. In its own Azure, on the platform it already uses for Scope 3. The first quarter in the tool is planned for early 2027.

A group's site reporting had grown over several years into apps, flows, a shared data layer, connectors and a reporting layer, with no consolidated documentation and a bug list longer than anyone had read in one piece. Two model families read the exported solution against the vendor's own guidance, two hundred and forty-two rules from Microsoft's documentation, and a person approved every finding and wrote the reason. The result is a plan in waves, bundled by root cause, and the system documentation that did not exist before. The plan names the parts to rebuild as code in the group's own Azure.