One assessment framework
A common structure, terminology and risk logic kept the reports comparable.
Case study · Transaction due diligence
Environmental due diligence across a national automotive property portfolio
The assignment
An international client required a consistent environmental assessment of a large portfolio of commercial and industrial properties used for automotive activities. The work supported acquisition decisions, financing, liability allocation and post-acquisition planning.
The practical challenge
Thirty-six properties had to be assessed against one consistent method without flattening the differences between them. The transaction team needed comparable conclusions, but each site still required its own evidence trail, observations, limitations and proportionate actions.
Our work
ACED Miljø combined non-intrusive site inspections with property records, historical maps and aerial photographs, contaminated-land information, geological and groundwater data, tank records, authority material and transaction documents. Each property was assessed using one consistent risk framework.
What the programme delivered
- A consistent assessment framework across the portfolio
- Property-level reports for the international transaction team
- Risk conclusions linked to acquisition and post-acquisition actions
- Clear separation of evidence, uncertainty and recommended follow-up
- A portfolio view that highlighted higher-priority matters
How the programme was delivered
Property-specific evidence
Records, historical sources, data-room documents and site observations were connected to the correct property.
Source, pathway and receptor
Potential environmental issues were considered through a preliminary conceptual model rather than listed in isolation.
Portfolio oversight
Progress, open information and higher-priority matters were tracked across the programme.
Why this mattered to the client
The programme gave the transaction team a consistent basis for questions, risk allocation and post-acquisition planning. It also made clear where a gap was simply a limitation and where further investigation could materially change the decision.
Talk to us