jump to main content
Accounting & Finance
12. Jun 2026
Bettina Ludwig

Comparable reporting in the case of structural changes - Part 1: How companies remain controllable even after reorganisations

Structural changes within companies, such as, for example, acquisitions of competitors or internal restructurings, normally result in the comparability with historical financial data being lost. So-called comparable reporting is an approach that is available to ensure that there are consistent metrics and meaningful time series even where the organisational structures and segments have changed. Part 1, here in this report, outlines the essential requirements for professional comparable reporting. Part 2 will demonstrate, by means of a practical example, how companies can efficiently implement comparable reporting in practice.

Structural transformation as the normality

These days, industrial and service companies are constantly adapting their organisational structures to the new requirements of markets, products or customers. New segments are created, spheres of responsibility are redefined, or business units are integrated. Something that makes strategic sense presents finance and controlling with the challenge that the historical figures no longer match the new structure. Revenues, results and metrics can no longer be meaningfully compared across a number of periods. Nevertheless, management expects reliable time series, clear trends and consistent control system logic.

The potential of comparable reporting

The term ‘comparable reporting’ describes the ability to present historical financial and performance data in a comparable way across a new organisational structure or new segments without overwriting the original structure. The aim is to additionally analyse data from a new perspective. 

In practical terms this means that that the old structure is retained as a historical reference. In parallel, a new control perspective is developed within which the historical values are reassigned. This is how comparable time series are created that remain reliable even after profound structural changes.

Growing pressure to take action

In recent years, there has been a significant rise in the need for comparable reporting. On the one hand, internal demands on transparency and the quality of controls have increased. On the other hand, new regulatory developments, such as, the new presentation in IFRS financial statements under IFRS 18, are increasingly having an impact on internal reporting as well.

Companies must be able to explain in a comprehensible way how performance metrics are developing - even when segments and organisational structures change. It is precisely here that comparable reporting creates an important link between internal control and external comprehensibility without having to rebuild the reporting logic with every reorganisation.

In advisory practice, the following catalysts can be found in industrial companies:

  • introduction of new product or customer segments,
  • reorganisation of distribution or production structures,
  • integration of newly acquired business units,
  • adjustment of the logic of internal control and metrics.

What all these cases have in common is that existing reports become less meaningful if the historical data are not systematically reclassified.

Disadvantages of stand-alone solutions

There are frequently attempts to provide comparability via special manual analyses or Excel-based reconciliations. Such approaches are workable in the short term, but they quickly reach their limits. The reasons for this are:

  • a lot of manual effort,
  • inconsistent results over time,
  • lack of transparency regarding the assumptions,
  • low repeatability,
  • limited verifiability.

Recommendation

Systematic implementation of comparable reporting should take place, at the very latest, when there are multiple periods, companies, or segments.

Application of the key principles of a robust approach ...

Professional comparable reporting follows certain basic guidelines:

  • Parallelism - Old and new structures co-exist.
  • Rules-based - Allocations are made in a way that is comprehensible and reproducible.
  • Focus - Consideration is given primarily to control-specific metrics.
  • Transparency - Assignments and adjustments are documented and can be explained.

These principles will ensure that comparability is created without adding unnecessary complexity.

Please note

These requirements can only be implemented on a long-term basis with appropriate system support. Modern corporate performance management platforms, such as CCH Tagetik or Lucanet, make it possible to map several organisational structures and segments in parallel and to assign historical data to new structures on the basis of rules. This results in consistent comparative views that can be updated and expanded at any time - without manual interventions or redundant data storage.

… will result in tangible benefits for the control system

Established comparable reporting can markedly enhance business planning and control:

  • Comparable time series increase trust in the figures.
  • Management reports remain robust despite organisational changes.
  • Planning and forecasting processes are built on consistent data.
  • There will be a significant reduction in special evaluations and ad hoc analyses.

Conclusion

Structural change is inevitable, however, data discontinuities are not. Comparable reporting creates a link between the past and a new reality; it thus provides a robust foundation for control functions and decision-making. In the next edition of our magazine, a specific implementation will be presented by means of a practical example.