Impact & ESG portfolios · Practical course
Turn diverse portfolio returns into a clear, defensible view
A portfolio reporting plan with shared definitions, source records and review responsibilities.
For: Fund, grantmaking and sustainability teams combining evidence from different organizations.
Start the first lesson →See the course plan ↓A manageable place to begin
Use the supplied examples first. Bring one real workflow when you are ready to adapt the exercises. You do not need to buy software or prepare a complete dataset to start.
Each lesson should leave you with one decision or piece of your plan. Continue when it is useful, and return to the next unfinished lesson on this browser.
Download the course workbook (PDF)Your learning path
Build the plan one lesson at a time
- Lesson 1
Design quarterly portfolio reporting that investees can complete
- Lesson 2
Find inconsistencies in portfolio returns before reporting
- Lesson 3
Keep company, investment and reporting history connected
- Lesson 4
Build a portfolio data dictionary without forcing false comparisons
- Lesson 5
Produce portfolio reports that trace back to approved evidence
Completion is a personal checklist stored in this browser, not a certificate or an assessment of your work.
Examples and further guidance
More about what you will build
Start small. Build something you can use.
You can work through the example without preparing files or buying software. Then use the workbook to adapt the method to one real workflow. Work one lesson at a time; you can return to the next unfinished lesson on this browser.
By the end, you’ll be able to…
- Connect each organization’s recurring updates, documents and agreed reporting plan.
- Detect discrepancies and map compatible measures without forcing every investee onto identical indicators.
- Prepare a portfolio answer that shows its sources, coverage, definition versions and approval owner.
Make the practice useful.
First, try the supplied example. Then test your plan with an investee reporting owner or a colleague who approves the final report.
Reading explains the method; the exercises produce a first plan. Applying it to your organization may need further review and implementation work.
A fictional fund collects quarterly updates from organizations with different outcome models, plus financial documents and relationship context. One reports year-to-date figures while another reports the quarter only.
Use these fictional inputs.
- Company or grantee updates; shared and organization-specific metrics; financial reports; social-audit evidence; logic models; CRM context and documents from file stores.
First thought: Which portfolio question can these different reports actually answer, and what evidence is still missing?
What this course covers
Shared structure does not require identical metrics. Framework mapping does not itself validate impact, SROI or causal claims.
Agree purpose, essential definitions and access before collecting. The lesson order deepens those practices; it does not postpone them.
How a connected workflow changes the work
Make the next question easier to answer.
When tools stay separate
Each company sends a report; the fund rebuilds definitions and totals in spreadsheets.
The connected approach
Collect company-specific evidence against shared fund context, flag mismatches early and retain the approved history for the next reporting cycle.
Sopact’s approach brings collection, qualitative analysis, record context and operational control into the same working process. The benefit to test is how much reconciliation and specialist support your team needs each cycle—not simply how many features a tool lists.
A simple one-off survey may need no more than a form. This course is for work where evidence accumulates and must stay usable. Existing systems can remain sources; agree and test the relevant imports and access before relying on them.
See the example before you begin
Can three reports answer one portfolio question?
Fictional example: The board asks for women in paid full-time roles on June 30. Three organizations submit a number labeled “jobs.”
- A reports 40: women in paid full-time roles on June 30.
- B reports 60: temporary placements during January–June, with no gender breakdown.
- C reports 25: women in paid full-time roles on March 31.
The submitted figures do not support a June total of 125. A’s 40 fits the requested definition, subject to source review. B requires different evidence; C needs a current observation. One of three organizations has supplied a compatible result. That coverage is not a share of all employees.
Try it: Write the question and its minimum shared fields. Then name what you would ask B and C to supply, who reviews it and what remains visible if no response arrives. Keep organization-specific indicators that serve other decisions. The dictionary identifies compatible observations; it does not make different outcomes equivalent.
Review your completed plan
Test the plan you have built.
Use the pilot checklist on workbook page 7. Ask a colleague to trace one record through collection, review and an appropriate report. Record any gap, its owner and the next review point.
Download workbook (fillable PDF)Workbook answers stay in your saved file. Chapter completion is remembered only in this browser.
Explore the impact & esg portfolios solution →