GRI 101: Biodiversity 2024 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 101-4
Identification of biodiversity impacts
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
1 datapoints ↓
5 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to identify and describe where its activities, products, or services are causing or contributing to impacts on biodiversity. In practice, the report should make clear what those impacts are, where they occur, and how the organisation has determined that they are significant enough to disclose. The emphasis is on being specific about the nature of the impact rather than giving a general statement of commitment to nature.
The practical focus is usually on coverage across the organisation’s relevant operations, not just a few flagship sites or headline projects. A useful report will show whether the organisation has looked across its full footprint, including upstream and downstream where relevant, and explain any exclusions or gaps. The aim is to give readers a clear picture of the main biodiversity impacts the organisation has identified and the basis for that identification.
* This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
| Datapoint | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biodiversity impact selection | Capture the method used to decide which sites and which upstream or downstream products and services are the main sources of actual and possible effects on biodiversity, including the criteria, thresholds and any ranking or screening steps used. | Selection methodology, impact assessment outputs, site/product/service prioritisation list, and sign-off from sustainability, operations or procurement. | Sustainability / Environment |
Show GRI 101-4 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Set out how you identified which sites matter most for biodiversity impacts, including both current and possible effects.
- Set out how you identified which products and services in the supply chain matter most for biodiversity impacts, including both current and possible effects.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the boundary for the explanation first: decide which locations and which goods or services in your value chain are in scope for the biodiversity assessment.
- Define the basis for judging significance, using a consistent internal method so you can explain why some locations or value-chain items were treated as more important than others.
- Gather the supporting material that shows how the judgement was made, such as assessment notes, screening outputs, maps, supplier information, or other internal records used in the decision.
- Write the disclosure as a clear explanation of the process and outcome, showing how the organisation identified the sites and value-chain products or services with the greatest actual or likely biodiversity impacts.
- Record any exclusions, boundary changes, or assumptions that affected the scope or the result, so the reader can see what was left out and why.
- Check the final wording against the official source and your evidence pack to confirm the explanation is complete, consistent, and aligned with the underlying requirement.
Request the site and supply-chain impact screening evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How did we decide which sites and which products or services in the supply chain have the most significant actual and potential effects on biodiversity?
Use your own operational terms first, then map them to the biodiversity reporting request. For example, if your teams talk about locations, assets, facilities, product lines, suppliers, or sourcing routes, use those labels in the ask and in the response. Keep the request in business language, then translate it for reporting review.
Weak request
Please provide the biodiversity impacts identification data for GRI 101-4.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, so the recipient has to translate the ask before they can act. It does not say which internal records are needed, what period to cover, what method was used, or what evidence should come back. That makes it harder to trace the decision and harder to reuse the material for reporting review.
Better request
Please send the working papers or extracts for [reporting period] that show how your team decided which sites and which products or services in the supply chain were treated as the highest biodiversity priorities. Include the items reviewed, the screening or scoring method, the source system or file, the final priority list, and the reviewer or approver. Use your own site, asset, product, supplier, or route names rather than reporting terms.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for site and supply-chain impact screening evidence Hi [Name], I’m preparing the biodiversity reporting pack and need the material you used to identify which sites and which products or services in the supply chain were treated as the most significant for biodiversity impacts. Please send, for [reporting period], the working papers or extracts that show: - the sites, assets, facilities, product lines, services, or supplier groups reviewed; - the method or scoring used to rank them; - the source files or systems used; - the final list of items flagged as highest priority; and - who reviewed or signed off the selection. Please use your team’s own labels and system names. If helpful, I can adapt the reporting wording after I see your draft. A possible LRA training template only — please adapt this to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [Your name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [Name] — for [reporting period], could you share the evidence behind how you ranked the sites and supply-chain items that matter most for biodiversity? Please include the list reviewed, the scoring or screening method, the source file/system, and the final priority list. Use your own team terms. I’ll map it for reporting after. Thanks.
Industry examples
Food manufacturing
Context. A producer wants to show how it picked the factories, farms, ingredients, and logistics links that were treated as most important for biodiversity review.
Adapted request. Please share the site and supply-chain screening pack for [reporting period] covering factories, key ingredient sources, and transport routes. Include the ranking method, the source register, the final priority list, and the sign-off record. Use your own plant, ingredient, and supplier names.
Example response. Attached: factory risk register v3, ingredient hotspot review, and supplier screening sheet. The pack covers 14 factories, 22 ingredient groups, and 9 logistics routes. Three factories and five ingredient groups were flagged as highest priority. Reviewed by Operations and Procurement on 10 Apr 2026.
Mining / extractives
Context. A miner wants to evidence how it selected operating sites, exploration areas, and contracted haulage or processing services for biodiversity review.
Adapted request. Please send the biodiversity screening evidence for [reporting period] showing how operating sites, exploration blocks, and outsourced processing or haulage services were ranked. Include the assessment basis, the asset list, the final priority set, and the reviewer notes. Use your own site and contractor labels.
Example response. Attached: asset biodiversity screening workbook, exploration area map set, and contractor review log. The review covered 8 operating sites, 6 exploration blocks, and 4 contracted service groups. Two sites, one exploration block, and one contractor route were marked as highest priority. Approved by the EHS lead on 22 Mar 2026.
The full request pack — response form, data table, evidence metadata and sign-off — is in the Download Centre.
Draft your disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain the basis used to decide which sites and which supply-chain products or services were treated as the most important for biodiversity, including the criteria, data sources and any judgement applied.
Context note
Set out what the identified sites and supply-chain areas mean in practice, namely where the organisation believes its biggest current and possible biodiversity effects are concentrated.
Fluctuation statement
If the set of priority sites or supply-chain items changed from the previous period, explain whether that was due to a change in operations, better information, or a revised assessment approach.
Content index entry
GRI 101-4 Identification of biodiversity impacts — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 101-4. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We set out the method we used to decide which locations and which upstream or downstream products and services were most material for biodiversity impacts, and we kept that method consistent with the basis used in the report. | The assurer will test whether the selection method was actually applied, whether it was applied consistently, and whether the explanation matches the evidence used to rank the disclosed operations and value-chain activities. | ['Internal methodology note or scoring model used to rank biodiversity impacts', 'Lists of sites, products and services considered, with the final inclusion/exclusion rationale', 'Working papers showing how the ranking was applied in practice and reviewed before publication'] |
| We can show the data and judgement behind the coverage figure, including how we narrowed the population to the parts of the business and supply chain that mattered most for the topic. | The assurer will probe whether the coverage basis is complete, whether exclusions were justified, and whether the reported figure is supported by traceable calculations rather than unsupported judgement. | ['Population lists and boundary files used for the calculation', 'Evidence for any exclusions, overrides or materiality thresholds', 'Reconciliation from source records to the published figure'] |
| We held evidence for the site and product decisions, including the records used to compare relative impact, so the basis for the final selection can be traced. | The assurer will check whether the evidence trail is sufficient to support the choices made, whether it is contemporaneous, and whether it links back to the final disclosure without gaps. | ['Site-level and product-level impact assessments', 'Supporting datasets, maps, supplier information or other source records used in the assessment', 'Version-controlled files showing the path from draft analysis to final disclosure'] |
| Before publication, we carried out internal checks on the calculations, the boundary choices and the wording of the explanation to make sure the figure and narrative aligned. | The assurer will look for evidence of review controls, calculation checks and sign-off, and will test whether the published wording accurately reflects the underlying analysis. | ['Review and approval records, including sign-off by responsible staff', 'Calculation checks, cross-checks and any exception logs', 'Final draft compared with source analysis to confirm consistency'] |
| Where judgement was needed, we documented the reasons for the choices made and kept enough detail to explain why some sites or supply-chain items were treated as more significant than others. | The assurer will assess whether judgement was exercised transparently, whether the rationale is credible, and whether the explanation is specific enough to withstand challenge. | ['Documented rationale for key judgements and thresholds', 'Meeting notes or decision papers showing how choices were agreed', 'Evidence that the rationale was retained alongside the final reporting pack'] |
Evidence pack to prepare
- The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
- A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
- Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
- The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
- Minutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation
Common reporting gaps
- The information is presented without a date or as-at point.
- The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.
- Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.
- Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
- Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.
- Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong owner
The request goes to a team that only sees one part of the business, so the people who actually choose sites or suppliers with the biggest nature effects never provide the input.
- Framework language instead of business language
The data call asks for the answer in reporting jargon, and the operational team cannot map it back to how they talk about locations, products, or supply routes.
- Scope not pinned down
The team starts collecting examples without first fixing which sites, which product lines, and which supply-chain activities are in scope, so the dataset shifts as people interpret it differently.
- Wrong period or timing basis
Inputs are pulled from different reporting windows or cut-off dates, which means the final set does not reflect one consistent point in time or period.
- Mixed counting basis
Some teams count individual sites while others count business units or product families, so the figures cannot be compared or combined cleanly.
- Original source labels lost
When notes are copied into a tracker, the site names, product codes, or supplier references from the source evidence are stripped out, making later trace-back difficult.
- Populations merged too early
Sites, products, and supply-chain items that should stay separate are rolled into one list, which hides where the biggest nature effects sit.
- Evidence details missing
The file contains the conclusion but not the supporting metadata such as source date, owner, or document reference, so the basis for the selection cannot be checked.
- No sign-off trail
The draft list is circulated without a recorded review by the people who know the operations, leaving no clear record of who agreed the final selection.
Where judgement is often needed
- Acquisitions and disposals during the year
Use a clear cut-off for bought-in or sold-off sites and explain whether you assess them from the date control starts or ends, so readers can see why some locations are included or left out.
- Different local meanings for the same habitat or species term
Where country teams use different labels or legal definitions, pick one practical internal rule for comparing sites and say how you translated local descriptions into a single group view.
- Sites or products sitting on the boundary of the review
Decide in advance how to treat locations, suppliers, or product lines that are partly inside and partly outside the review, and disclose the rule used for borderline cases.
- Choosing the timing basis for the assessment
State whether the assessment reflects a point in time, a full year, or another period, and explain any timing choice that affects which impacts are counted as most significant.
- Measured information versus informed estimates
If field data are incomplete, use the best available estimate, label it as such, and explain where direct observation was available and where judgement filled the gaps.
- Rounding and ranking close calls
When scores or counts are very close, apply one consistent rounding rule and explain how ties or near-ties were resolved so the final shortlist is reproducible.
- Protecting sensitive location data
If exact coordinates or site names could expose sensitive information, group the data at a higher level and explain the aggregation method while keeping the impact assessment understandable.
- Mergers, closures, and reorganised operations
When the operating footprint changes through restructuring, say which version of the business was used for the review and how you avoided double counting or missing impacts.
- Shared facilities and mixed-use sites
For assets used by more than one business line or tenant, explain how you split responsibility and how you decided which part of the site drove the biodiversity assessment.
- Supply-chain products with incomplete traceability
Where upstream traceability is partial, describe the proxy used to identify the most material products or services and note the limits of that approach.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic illustration only. Shows a plain-language explanation of how the company identified the most important sites and supply-chain products/services for biodiversity-related impacts, using internally consistent figures.
We first mapped where our own operations and upstream supply chain could create the greatest pressure on nature, then ranked those locations and product lines using a simple materiality screen. In practice, we focused on sites and ingredients where land conversion risk, water stress, and proximity to sensitive habitats were highest, and we checked which suppliers and product groups contributed most to those pressures.
- Our site review covered 18 facilities; 5 were flagged as the most significant because they sat in water-stressed catchments or near protected habitats.
- For the supply chain, we assessed 24 product and ingredient groups; 6 were prioritised because they accounted for 71% of our purchased volume and were linked to the highest nature-related risks in sourcing regions.
Apparel retail · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic illustration only. Shows a different sector using a different explanation, while still describing how the company identified the sites and supply-chain products/services with the most significant actual and potential biodiversity impacts.
We used a risk-based review to decide which parts of our business and supply chain needed the closest biodiversity focus. That review combined location data, sourcing concentration, and known sensitivity of the surrounding environment so we could separate lower-risk activities from the places and product categories most likely to affect nature.
- Of 31 distribution, office, and owned retail sites, 4 were treated as the key locations because they were in or beside ecologically sensitive areas.
- In our supply chain, we screened 19 product and service categories; 5 were treated as the main priorities because they represented 64% of spend and were associated with the strongest potential effects on habitats and species.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. Suggested visuals and a GRI content-index line generated from this disclosure's datapoints.
Suggested visuals
- How the organisation identified the most material biodiversity pressure points — table: A side-by-side list of the sites and supply-chain products or services assessed, with a note on the criteria used to judge which ones were most significant for actual and possible biodiversity impacts.
- Sites ranked by biodiversity significance — bar: A ranking of locations from highest to lower significance, based on the organisation’s assessment of where biodiversity impacts are greatest or most likely to arise.
- Supply-chain products and services by impact significance — bar: A comparison of product or service groups in the supply chain, showing which ones were judged to have the strongest current or potential effects on biodiversity.
- Sites and supply-chain areas with the greatest biodiversity exposure — stacked bar: A combined view of site-level and supply-chain findings, separating current impacts from possible future impacts to show where the main concerns sit.
- Geographic spread of priority sites — map: The location of sites identified as most significant for biodiversity, helping readers see whether the main issues are concentrated in particular places.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We identified 12 sites and 8 supply-chain products and services as having the most significant biodiversity impacts.
Better
We ranked our 12 sites and 8 supply-chain products and services by likely and actual biodiversity impact, using our internal screening and risk review.
Best
We identified 12 sites and 8 supply-chain products and services as our main biodiversity-impact areas across the year, based on internal screening and risk review, and the increase from 10 last year was mainly due to a wider supplier review and a new site assessment.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 101-4 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
MOEVE, S.A. | Oil and Gas · Spain | 2025 | Partial | p. 111 →p. 113 →p. 151 → | Consolidated Management Report 2025 → | EY; BSI | ||||||
Evidence in MOEVE, S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Moeve, S.A.'s 2025 Consolidated Management Report provides evidence on significant actual and potential negative impacts related to suppliers, as noted on page 126. The report also references impacts on local communities and sustainable supply chain management on pages 155 and 164, including evaluation of new suppliers according to environmental criteria. However, the extent of detailed quantitative data or comprehensive impact assessments remains unclear from the provided excerpts.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Engie Brasil Energia S.A. | Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Brazil | 2025 | Partial | p. 74 →p. 75 →p. 77 → | ENGIE Brasil Sustainability Report 2025 → | ey | ||||||
Evidence in Engie Brasil Energia S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Engie Brasil Energia S.A.'s 2025 Sustainability Report includes a narrative on supply chain issues, specifically mentioning non-compliance with governance standards and regulations, as well as a lack of diligence regarding DUE 1 rules (p.170). However, the report does not provide detailed quantitative data or further explanation on these points, leaving the extent and impact of these issues unclear. Additional information on how these governance concerns are addressed or mitigated is notably missing.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd. | Home Building · Japan | 2025 | Partial | p. 529 →p. 135 →p. 23 → | Sustainability Report 2025 → | EY; BSI | ||||||
Evidence in Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.'s Sustainability Report 2025 includes a narrative on significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities, referencing supplier social assessment and new suppliers on page 537. This is the strongest covered datapoint related to the disclosure. However, the report does not provide further detailed data or metrics on this topic, leaving other aspects of the disclosure unclear or missing.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A group with farms, warehouses and a small manufacturing site has mapped all locations, but only some places sit near sensitive habitats. The team also buys several raw materials and wants to know which products and services in the supply chain need deeper review.How should the preparer explain how the organisation worked out which sites and which supply-chain products or services have the biggest current and possible effects on biodiversity?
Model answer. The explanation should describe the method used to sort the organisation’s own locations and its supply-chain products or services by the size of their current and possible biodiversity effects. It should make clear what factors were used, how the comparison was done, and why the selected sites and supply-chain items were judged to matter most.
Why this matters. Give a plain account of the approach used to identify the most important biodiversity impacts across both owned locations and supply-chain activities.
A preparer has a list of ten sites, but the review only covered three locations because those were the ones with recent complaints. The remaining sites were not assessed, even though two are close to watercourses and one is in a protected area buffer zone.Can the organisation present this as its basis for choosing the most significant biodiversity impacts?
Model answer. No. The explanation needs to cover the full set of relevant sites and the relevant supply-chain products or services, not just the places that were easiest to review or that already had complaints. If some locations were screened out, the organisation should be able to show the logic used to do that and why the final set still captures the most important actual and possible effects.
Why this matters. The selection method should be broad enough to support a credible ranking of impacts, not a narrow sample chosen for convenience.
A business has assessed its own operations carefully, but its biodiversity review says nothing about purchased goods, outsourced transport or other services. The team argues that the supply chain is too complex to explain in a short report.What should the preparer do before finalising the disclosure?
Model answer. The preparer should include how the organisation identified which supply-chain products and services have the most significant actual and possible biodiversity effects, alongside the site-based assessment. If the supply chain was narrowed to certain categories, the explanation should say how those categories were chosen and why they were treated as the most relevant.
Why this matters. Do not limit the explanation to owned sites; include the supply chain where it is part of the impact-screening approach.
A company used a scoring matrix that combined habitat sensitivity, scale of land use, and whether impacts were already happening or could happen later. The draft report says only that 'high-risk sites were selected' and gives no further detail.Is that enough for the disclosure, or does the explanation need more substance?
Model answer. That is not enough. The organisation should explain the actual method it used to decide which sites and which supply-chain products or services had the greatest current and possible biodiversity effects. A useful explanation would set out the main criteria, how they were applied, and how they led to the final shortlist, rather than using a bare label such as 'high-risk'.
Why this matters. The reader should be able to follow the decision process, not just see the final label applied to the chosen sites or supply-chain items.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 101-4 — drawn from their own published reports, with the exact pages, and an LRA AI-assistant that works through it with you. Available to LRA Community members and to students throughout their platform access.
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
→
ESRSRelated
ESRS E4
Biodiversity and Ecosystems — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
How do I use the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity page to prepare a draft disclosure from scratch?
Start with the plain-language explainer, then follow the step-by-step preparation section and the draft-output section. The page is designed to help you move from selecting the biodiversity impact data point through to a draft narrative, visual ideas and a content-index line. ↑ section
What data do I need to collect for GRI 101-4 Biodiversity before I start drafting?
The page says the key datapoint to prepare is biodiversity impact selection. Use that as the starting point for gathering the information you need, then check the example disclosures and the workbook to see how the data is turned into a draft. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity data and sign-off in practice?
The page does not assign roles, but it is set up for a sustainability or ESG manager to coordinate with the relevant data owner and assurance reviewer. Use the preparation steps and evidence pack to agree who collects the data, who checks it, and who signs off the final draft. ↑ section
What methodology decisions do I need to make for GRI 101-4 Biodiversity impact selection?
The page points you to a step-by-step preparation section, so the practical focus is on deciding how you will select and describe the biodiversity impacts you are reporting on. Use the plain-language explainer and the synthetic examples to keep the approach consistent and easy to evidence. ↑ section
What should go into the evidence pack for GRI 101-4 Biodiversity assurance?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness. Build your pack around those items and use the five assurance claims to check that each claim has a clear risk and supporting evidence. ↑ section
How do I use the five assurance claims on the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity page?
Use them as a checklist to test whether your draft is supportable before it goes to assurance. For each claim, make sure you can point to the related risk and the evidence you would show a reviewer. ↑ section
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes for GRI 101-4 Biodiversity, and how do I avoid them?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can spot weak points before drafting. A practical way to use it is to compare your draft against those gaps, then tighten the scope, evidence and wording where needed. ↑ section
How do I use the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity workbook and printable library card?
The Download Centre provides a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise preparation and assurance checks, and the library card as a quick reference while drafting or reviewing. ↑ section
Can I use the synthetic example disclosures on the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity page as a template for my own draft?
Yes, as a drafting aid only. The examples are synthetic and internally consistent, so they are useful for seeing how the data table, narrative starters and content-index line can be put together, but they are not a substitute for your own company data. ↑ section
How do I turn my GRI 101-4 Biodiversity data into a draft narrative and content-index line?
Use the draft-output section, which gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. That section is intended to help you convert prepared data into a report-ready draft without having to start from a blank page. ↑ section
Is the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity page useful if I also need ESRS E4 biodiversity data?
The page notes ESRS E4 (Biodiversity and Ecosystems) as the closest correspondence, so it can help you think about reuse of data across frameworks. It does not say the requirements are identical, so treat it as a practical cross-reference rather than a one-to-one mapping. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 101-4 Biodiversity disclosure checklist for ESG managers
- How to prepare GRI 101-4 Biodiversity impact selection evidence pack
- GRI 101-4 Biodiversity assurance claims and evidence pack
- GRI 101-4 Biodiversity workbook download how to use
- GRI 101-4 Biodiversity common reporting mistakes
- GRI 101-4 Biodiversity draft narrative starters and content index line
- GRI 101-4 Biodiversity synthetic example disclosure table
- GRI 101-4 Biodiversity from company reports examples
- ESRS E4 biodiversity data reuse from GRI 101-4
- GRI 101-4 Biodiversity plain language explainer
- GRI 101-4 Biodiversity assurance ready checklist
- GRI 101-4 Biodiversity who should own the data
✓ LRA AI Assistant · human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get a practical answer for your reporting context. Your first answer is free — create a free account to continue the conversation.
Try
Sources, status and disclaimer
This LRA assistance tool is designed for educational and internal data-collection purposes. It is not an official interpretation of the GRI Standards, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or EU CSRD/ESRS requirements. When applying these frameworks in professional practice, users should consult and double-check the official standards, guidance and applicable regulatory sources.
