A gap analysis is a disclosure-quality diagnostic — assessing how well current public disclosure performs against FTSE Russell methodology, GRI 2021, IFRS S1/S2, and SASB conventions. It does not validate the underlying data (that’s audit work). It assesses whether what the company discloses is complete, structured, and indicator-aligned to how rating agencies and regulators will read it.

A sustainability audit (AA1000AS or ISO 14064 verification) tests whether the underlying ESG data is accurate. The two are complementary: gap analysis tells you what’s missing from disclosure; assurance tells you whether what’s disclosed is accurate. Othello’s in-house bench includes AA1000AS ACSAP and ISO 14064 Lead Auditor — but those credentials are used differently in the gap analysis context.

The estimated band is indicative. Actual FTSE Russell scoring is done by Russell’s internal analysts applying their proprietary scoring algorithm to the same public disclosure. Othello’s estimated band is calculated from indicator-level scoring using FTSE’s published methodology — meaning it reflects FTSE’s stated approach but cannot fully replicate Russell’s internal scoring nuances.

In practice, the estimated band typically lands within ±0.3 of the actual FTSE band for SET-listed companies where the gap analysis has full access to public disclosure. The estimate is most useful as a baseline for remediation planning — the question is “where does the band move with remediation” rather than “what is the precise current band.”

Standard gap analysis kicks off on receipt of three categories of input: (1) Current public disclosure — most recent sustainability report, 56-1 One Report Part 1.3, integrated report, climate disclosure, ESG website pages, prior-year rating agency submissions; (2) ICB sector classification — the company’s primary ICB industry and supersector; (3) Engagement scope — which tier (Quick-look / Standard / Deep), which frameworks prioritised (e.g. FTSE-only vs full cross-framework), any specific rating agency targets (CDP, MSCI, DJSI, Sustainalytics).

Optional but recommended: internal KPI inventory (helps assess what could be disclosed vs. what currently is), materiality matrix or topic register (helps focus the priority assessment), prior internal gap-analyses or audit findings (helps avoid duplicate work). All under mutual NDA from first email.

Big Four firms (Deloitte, KPMG, PwC, EY) provide ESG diagnostic services through their sustainability advisory practices. The standard Big Four model: senior consultants set methodology, junior analysts run the indicator assessment, partner reviews the output on a sample basis. Quality varies at the indicator level because the assessment is run by analysts who don’t hold the framework issuer’s credential.

Othello inverts this. The framework issuer’s credential holder does the assessment work directly: GRI 2021 Certified Trainer scores the GRI alignment pass; IFRS Foundation-certified specialist scores the IFRS S1/S2 pass; AA1000AS ACSAP scores the assurance-readiness pass. Plus the practice is built on a bilingual reporting foundation — meaning the gap analysis output is calibrated to actual disclosure-drafting conventions, not just abstract methodology.

Yes — the gap analysis output feeds directly into rating-agency submission preparation. The cross-framework mapping table identifies which FTSE indicators map to specific CDP questionnaire items, MSCI key issues, DJSI / S&P CSA questions, and Sustainalytics ESG Risk Rating issues. The same underlying disclosure inventory becomes the source material for each agency’s submission.

For the most submission-focused use, commission the Quick-look Tier targeted at the specific rating agency (e.g., “CDP Climate Change submission readiness”) — top 30 indicators specific to that agency’s scoring, with submission-readiness assessment per indicator. Standard Tier covers all four rating agencies plus FTSE in a single pass. See CDP · MSCI · DJSI / S&P CSA · การมีส่วนร่วมกับ Sustainalytics services.

Gap analysis is significantly less than the full bilingual sustainability reporting engagement — typically 10–20% of the full annual reporting cost, depending on tier selection. The point of the gap analysis is to right-size the subsequent investment: instead of committing to a full bilingual report and then discovering scope creep, the gap analysis surfaces the actual remediation work required upfront.

Where gap analysis directly precedes a full bilingual sustainability reporting engagement or 56-1 ESG section engagement, gap analysis fees are partially credited against the subsequent disclosure engagement. The cross-framework mapping table built during gap analysis becomes the source-of-truth for the subsequent drafting work — no methodology rebuild required.

Mutual NDA from the first email is the firm-wide standard. Gap analysis outputs — scored matrix, board summary, remediation roadmap — are commercially sensitive because they identify specific disclosure weaknesses competitors and short-sellers could exploit. All deliverables are watermarked, version-controlled, and delivered via secured channels (encrypted email or client SFTP).

For listed companies, gap analysis output is typically classified as material non-public information (MNPI) during the engagement period until incorporated into the next public disclosure cycle. Othello’s standard engagement letters include the MNPI handling provisions and information barriers. Conflict-of-interest checks are run before engagement to ensure no overlap with rating agency, sponsor, or competitor advisory relationships.

Yes — gap analysis is a fully standalone engagement. Many SET-listed companies commission gap analysis specifically to inform an internal decision (whether to engage an external advisor, whether to remediate now or next cycle, whether to enter a rating agency) without committing to a follow-on engagement. The remediation roadmap is structured so that internal teams can execute it themselves if they have the capacity.

For companies that do progress to a follow-on engagement (full bilingual reporting, 56-1 drafting, or remediation), gap analysis becomes the baseline document that the subsequent work is measured against. Year-two gap analysis typically shows measurable band uplift as a result of the remediation work — useful for IR teams reporting ESG progress to institutional shareholders.

Yes. Othello responds to formal procurement processes for ESG gap analysis from SET-listed corporates, prospective listing applicants, and procurement teams scoping larger ESG advisory engagements. Standard procurement requirements are met: ISO 17100:2015 certification, ATA + ATC accreditation, GDPR + PDPA compliance, mutual NDA from first email, in-house credentialled assessors (GRI 2021, IFRS S1/S2, AA1000AS, ISO 14064, TGO), and SET-listed engagement references available under mutual NDA at procurement stage.

Standard RFP response is 2–4 วันทำการ for gap analysis (faster than full advisory engagements because scope is more structured). RFP response covers: methodology approach, tier recommendation per scenario, in-house bench credentials, capacity allocation, pricing structure, engagement timeline, and sample matrix structure (anonymised). Quote response on engagement scoping is within one business hour of receipt of source files and signed NDA.