Descubre Pandipedia
Un directorio creciente de respuestas útiles seleccionadas por la comunidad de Pandi. Busca en la colección o explora los últimos descubrimientos.
1669 entradas disponibles
ISO/IEEE 11073 standard links for device interoperability
Veamos alternativas:
- Modifica la consulta.
- Inicia un nuevo hilo.
- Eliminar fuentes (si se han agregado manualmente).
Biotech runway is not cash, it is milestone math
Veamos alternativas:
- Modifica la consulta.
- Inicia un nuevo hilo.
- Eliminar fuentes (si se han agregado manualmente).
Crea tu cuenta para adaptar este feed a lo que buscas y disfrutas.
Five UK procurement metrics that can mislead analysis
Veamos alternativas:
- Modifica la consulta.
- Inicia un nuevo hilo.
- Eliminar fuentes (si se han agregado manualmente).
How do you track buyers, suppliers, values, deadlines, and SME status in UK procurement data?. Structure the report around the core jobs: identify the buyer, link suppliers, choose the right date, read contract value and duration, and calculate direct award, single-bid, and SME metrics. Include a compact field-to-use-case table and a final checklist for dashboard builders and proposal teams.
Tracking buyers, suppliers, values, deadlines, and SME status in UK procurement data
The cleanest way to work with UK procurement data is to treat each procurement process as the anchor, then join buyers, suppliers, dates, and contract details back to that process. The attached guidance says the main sheet is the starting point for buyer and procedure analysis, with child sheets linked by `main_ocid` and nested sheets joined with their parent ID fields[1][2].
For award data specifically, the contracts extract says it covers published contract awards from 1 April 2017 onward and includes the buyer, awarded suppliers, contract value, and duration. It also notes the dataset is still incomplete and is updated quarterly[3][4][5].
1) Identify the buyer
Start with the buyer or procedure record in the main sheet, then carry that process forward through the rest of the model using `main_ocid`. That gives you a stable anchor for dashboard filters, pipeline reporting, and cross-sheet joins[6][7].
2) Link suppliers
The guide recommends joining `contracts` to `awardssuppliers` on `mainocid` and `contracts.awardID = awardssuppliers.awardsid`, then linking suppliers to `parties` to inspect fields such as `details_scale` for SME analysis[8].
A key limitation is that some below-threshold contracts do not have declared supplier identifiers, so SME matching is not always complete. The source also warns that a single contract can have multiple suppliers, so you should aggregate back to one contract row before calculating contract-level metrics[9][10].
3) Choose the right date
Use the date that matches the question. The guide says the main-sheet `date` is the latest update date for the procedure, `contracts.dateSigned` is best for contract trends over time, and the first notice publication date can be used as a start date when needed[11].
4) Read contract value and duration
For award-level reporting, the contracts extract explicitly includes contract value and duration, which makes it suitable for spend and term analysis[12]. The guide also points to contract value as the basis for indicators such as total contract value awarded by procurement method, excluding framework agreements[13].
5) Calculate the core metrics
- Direct award: calculate the proportion of direct award procedures and trend it over time using the filtered UKPGA data[14].
- Single-bid: calculate the proportion of lots that received only one bid as a competition indicator[15].
- SME: calculate the proportion of contracts awarded to SMEs by method, after aggregating supplier information back to one contract row[16][17].
Compact field-to-use-case table
| Field or join | Use case | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| `main_ocid`[18][19] | Anchor buyer and procedure records across sheets | Keeps one procurement process connected through the full dataset |
| `contracts.awardID = awards_suppliers.awards_id`[20] | Link award records to supplier records | Lets you attach supplier names and attributes to contract awards |
| `parties.details_scale`[21] | SME identification | Supports SME tagging where supplier detail is available |
| `date` in the main sheet[22] | Latest update date for the procedure | Best for current-state reporting and refresh logic |
| `contracts.dateSigned`[23] | Contract trend analysis over time | Best date for signed-award timelines |
| Contract value[24][25] | Spend analysis and value by method | Used for award value reporting and method breakdowns |
| Contract duration[26] | Term and expiry analysis | Supports deadline, renewal, and pipeline views |
| Declared supplier identifiers[27] | Supplier attribution | May be missing for some below-threshold contracts |
Final checklist for dashboard builders and proposal teams
- Use the procurement process as the primary key, with `main_ocid` as the join path[28][29].
- Make buyer filters consistent across main-sheet and contract-level views[30].
- Join suppliers through the award-to-supplier bridge, not by free text names[31].
- Choose dates by question: latest update, signed date, or first notice publication date[32].
- Keep contract value and duration together for spend and deadline analysis[33].
- Aggregate to one row per contract before calculating direct award, single-bid, or SME metrics[34][35].
- Flag missing supplier identifiers and incomplete coverage in any SME view[36][37].
- Treat the dataset as evolving, since coverage is still incomplete and it is updated quarterly[38][39].
Bottom line
If you need one practical rule, it is this: anchor on the procurement process, join suppliers through award tables, pick the date that matches the question, and aggregate to contract level before calculating metrics[40][41][42][43]. That approach fits both dashboarding and proposal work, while staying within the limitations of the published UK data[44][45].
Veamos alternativas:
- Modifica la consulta.
- Inicia un nuevo hilo.
- Eliminar fuentes (si se han agregado manualmente).
What does the GRI evidence say about financial outcomes?
Veamos alternativas:
- Modifica la consulta.
- Inicia un nuevo hilo.
- Eliminar fuentes (si se han agregado manualmente).
UK procurement: the notices that actually warn you before tender
Veamos alternativas:
- Modifica la consulta.
- Inicia un nuevo hilo.
- Eliminar fuentes (si se han agregado manualmente).
Crea tu cuenta para adaptar este feed a lo que buscas y disfrutas.
One Climate Process, Two Reporting Regimes
Transcripción
Can ISSB and ESRS climate reporting come from one integrated process? The sources say yes, realistically, for most of the overlap. The interoperability guidance is designed to reduce complexity, fragmentation, and duplication, and it shows that substantially all ISSB climate disclosures are also included in ESRS. But the fit is not perfect. ESRS uses double materiality, while ISSB focuses on investor decision-useful information, so ESRS can require extra climate disclosures beyond the ISSB baseline. For teams, that means one shared core for data collection, governance, controls, metrics, targets, and risk management, with ESRS-specific branches where the broader scope goes further. In short, one shared framework is practical, but it should be built for divergence, not for identical output.
Veamos alternativas:
- Modifica la consulta.
- Inicia un nuevo hilo.
- Eliminar fuentes (si se han agregado manualmente).
FY 2023 climate disclosure: uptake rose, completeness lagged
Veamos alternativas:
- Modifica la consulta.
- Inicia un nuevo hilo.
- Eliminar fuentes (si se han agregado manualmente).
Early ESRS: 3 bottlenecks before comparability
Veamos alternativas:
- Modifica la consulta.
- Inicia un nuevo hilo.
- Eliminar fuentes (si se han agregado manualmente).
IFRS S2, TPT, and ESRS E1: how climate transition plans connect to finance. Compare IFRS S2, TPT, and ESRS E1 across the treatment of transition plan existence, investor relevance, 1.5 degree alignment, CapEx and OpEx, funding, and governance. Include a framework table and a practical implications section for sustainability, finance, and investor relations teams.
IFRS S2, TPT, and ESRS E1: how transition plans connect to finance
This brief compares how IFRS S2, the IFRS/TPT transition plan disclosure framework, and ESRS E1 treat climate transition plans as a finance-facing disclosure topic. The key differences are whether a plan must exist, how strongly the disclosures are aimed at investors, how 1.5°C alignment is treated, and how explicitly the frameworks connect transition plans to CapEx, OpEx, funding, and governance.[1][2]
The broad pattern is that IFRS S2 is primarily a disclosure standard for entities that already have transition plans, TPT provides a more detailed investor-oriented disclosure framework, and ESRS E1 is the most explicit about mandatory transition-plan disclosure and its connection to technical and financial planning.[3][4][5]
Framework comparison table
| Topic | IFRS S2 | TPT framework | ESRS E1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a transition plan have to exist? | An entity does not have to have or publish a transition plan, but if it has one, it discloses it or cross-references it.[6] | Discloses "any climate-related transition plan" an entity has, rather than requiring every company to have one.[7] | Transition-plan disclosure is mandatory under ESRS E1-1 for climate change mitigation, although undertakings without a full plan may disclose a mitigation action plan instead.[8] |
| Investor relevance | Disclosures are intended to be useful to primary users such as investors, lenders, and other creditors because they support risk pricing and capital allocation.[9] | Designed as investor-relevant disclosure that improves information for pricing risk and making capital allocation decisions.[10] | Presented as a strategic summary for users of the management report, helping them assess ambition, robustness, and the link between technical and financial planning.[11] |
| 1.5°C alignment | No blanket requirement that every plan be 1.5°C aligned; jurisdictions may add such information if it remains clearly identifiable.[12] | Plans should respond to the latest scientific findings and the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.[13] | Plans should explain compatibility with limiting warming to 1.5°C and benchmark targets to a 1.5°C reference pathway, though the guidance also says the compatibility issue is not addressed in this document.[14][15] |
| CapEx and OpEx | Climate strategy disclosures may include current and anticipated changes in resource allocation, including capital expenditure and R&D spending.[16] | Requires disclosure of investment and disposal plans, expected effects on financial position, performance and cash flows, including capital expenditure and asset retirements.[17] | Requires disclosure of investment and funding supporting implementation, including capital and operating expenditures, and links this to taxonomy-aligned CapEx and CapEx plans.[18][19] |
| Funding | Disclosures may cover funding the implementation of a strategic goal.[20] | Requires disclosure of planned sources of funding.[21] | Undertakings must explain and quantify the investments and funding supporting implementation, and disclose the financial resources allocated to the plan.[22] |
| Governance | Governance is an explicit disclosure area, including board or oversight responsibility, management accountability, incentives and remuneration, skills and competencies, and annual reporting on progress against quantified and timebound metrics and targets.[23][24] | Includes board or oversight responsibility, management accountability, incentives and remuneration, skills and competencies, and annual reporting against quantified and timebound metrics and targets.[25][26] | The plan should be overseen by the highest levels of governance and disclose approval by the administrative, management, and supervisory bodies, together with integration into strategy and business model.[27] |
Practical implications for sustainability, finance, and investor relations teams
- Sustainability teams: treat the transition plan as the single source of truth for mitigation strategy, targets, governance, and the resource pathway behind the plan. ESRS E1 is the most explicit about linking technical actions to financial planning, while TPT and IFRS S2 help structure what should be disclosed to capital-market audiences.[28][29][30]
- Finance teams: make sure the plan can be translated into budget, CapEx, OpEx, and funding language. ESRS E1 expects quantified investments and funding, and the TPT/IFRS materials connect transition planning to financial position, performance, cash flows, and capital allocation decisions.[31][32][33]
- Investor relations teams: prepare a consistent narrative on whether the company has a plan, how credible it is, whether it is aligned to a 1.5°C pathway, and how progress will be tracked. IFRS S2 is more permissive on plan existence, so IR teams should avoid implying that every issuer must already have a formal plan unless required by jurisdiction.[34][35][36]
- Cross-functional priority: ensure governance approvals, ownership, and annual progress reporting are aligned across sustainability, finance, and board reporting, because all three frameworks emphasize decision-useful, investor-facing disclosure rather than standalone narrative commentary.[37][38][39]
Bottom line
If you want the shortest synthesis: IFRS S2 says disclose a transition plan if you have one; TPT gives a detailed investor-focused template for what that disclosure should contain; and ESRS E1 turns transition planning into a mandatory sustainability reporting topic with especially strong links to governance, funding, and CapEx/OpEx planning.[40][41][42]
Veamos alternativas:
- Modifica la consulta.
- Inicia un nuevo hilo.
- Eliminar fuentes (si se han agregado manualmente).