GRI 2: General Disclosures · Universal Standard
Disclosure GRI 2-14
Role of the highest governance body in sustainability reporting
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
2 datapoints ↓
4 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks you to explain how the organisation’s highest governance body is involved in sustainability reporting. In practice, that means describing what role it plays in overseeing the report, reviewing the information before publication, and being accountable for the way sustainability matters are presented. The focus is on governance involvement, not on repeating the report content itself.
The practical question is whether this oversight covers the organisation as a whole, rather than only selected business units or flagship sites. You should make clear how the top governing body engages with reporting across operations, how far its oversight reaches, and whether it has a direct role in approving or challenging the information reported.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board approval process | State whether the board or equivalent top governing group reviews and signs off the reported content, including the topics the organisation has judged most important. If it does, describe the review and approval steps in plain terms. | Board papers, approval minutes, governance calendar, sign-off memo, reporting controls log. | Company secretariat / Governance |
| No board sign-off reason | If the board or equivalent top governing group does not review and approve the reported content, including the organisation’s key topics, explain why that is the case. | Governance policy, delegated authority matrix, board charter, reporting approval workflow, committee terms of reference. | Company secretariat / Governance |
Show GRI 2-14 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- State why the board is not the group that reviews and signs off the reported information, including the topics the organisation treats as material, where that is the case.
- Say whether the board is the group that reviews and signs off the reported information, including the topics the organisation treats as material; if it is, set out how that review and sign-off happens.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Confirm which governing group sits at the top of the organisation, and decide whether it is the body that signs off the reported information and the topics judged most important.
- Set the scope of the check clearly: identify the report content that needs review, including the important topics covered, so you know exactly what the approval process applies to.
- Gather proof of how the review and sign-off happened, or would happen, such as meeting records, approval notes, or internal sign-off trails that show the process used.
- Prepare the disclosure text in plain language: state whether that top governing group is responsible for review and approval, and describe the process if it is.
- If that group does not carry out the review and approval role, write a clear explanation of why another arrangement is used instead.
- Check the final wording against the official source to make sure the answer covers both required cases, matches the evidence, and does not add or omit anything.
Request board sign-off and review trail for sustainability reporting
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Did the board or its committees review and approve the sustainability report content, including the material topics, and if not, why was that responsibility handled elsewhere?
Use your organisation’s own names for the board, committees, report pack and approval steps first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. This is a possible LRA training template to adapt to your organisation; check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please confirm the governance body’s role in sustainability reporting and provide the process for reviewing and approving the information.
Why it fails: It uses framework language that may not match how the organisation works, and it does not ask for the actual evidence trail, dates, version, forum, or the reason where the board was not the decision-maker.
Better request
Please send the board or committee papers, minutes, approval note, and version history for [reporting period] showing whether the board or a committee reviewed and approved [report name], including the material topics list. If that was not done at board level, please explain why and point us to the management or committee route used.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for board review and approval evidence for sustainability reporting Dear [Name], We are preparing the sustainability reporting evidence pack and need your help with the board-side review trail for [reporting period]. Please send the following for [report / report section name]: - whether the board or one of its committees reviewed and approved the content, including the material topics list; - if yes, a short description of how the review and approval happened; - if no, the reason this was handled outside the board or committee route; - supporting evidence such as papers, minutes, approval notes, or decision logs. Please include the relevant dates, the forum involved, and the version of the report reviewed. This is a possible LRA training template to adapt to your organisation. Please check the official source before sign-off. Kind regards, [Your name] [Team / function]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [Name] — could you share the board / committee review trail for [reporting period] for [report name]? We need to know whether the board or a committee reviewed and approved the report content, including the material topics, and if not, why that route wasn’t used. Please attach the minutes / paper / approval note and the date, forum and version reviewed. This is a possible LRA training template to adapt to your organisation; check the official source before sign-off.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A group sustainability report is signed off through an audit committee before board noting.
Adapted request. Please share the audit committee paper, minutes and approval note for [reporting period] showing whether the committee reviewed and approved the sustainability report and the material topics list, plus any board note or final sign-off record.
Example response. Committee paper dated [date], minutes showing review of climate, workforce and supply chain topics, approval note for v4, and a board paper noting the committee’s approval.
Financial services
Context. The annual report includes a sustainability section reviewed by the risk committee, with final board approval of the full report.
Adapted request. Please provide the risk committee pack, minutes and board approval record for [reporting period] covering the sustainability section and the material topics used in the report, including any explanation if the board did not directly approve that section.
Example response. Risk committee paper and minutes showing review of the sustainability section, board paper approving the annual report, and a note that the committee handled detailed review while the board approved the final report package.
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
State whether the board or another governance route was used to review and approve the report, and explain the basis used to decide that approach, including how any material topics were handled.
Context note
This tells readers who stood behind the final reported information and whether oversight covered the organisation’s key issues as well as the wider report.
Fluctuation statement
If the review route changed from the prior period, explain what drove the change, such as a shift in governance responsibilities, reporting scope or approval practice.
Content index entry
GRI 2-14 Role of the highest governance body in sustainability reporting — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 2-14. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| The information reported for this disclosure reconciles to the underlying source records. | What is reported cannot be traced back to the systems or documents it was drawn from, or does not tie out to them. | calculation_workbook reconciling the reported value to source_system_export |
| The information reported for this disclosure is current as at the reporting date. | The disclosure reflects a different period, a cut-off before the reporting date, or stale data carried over from a prior period. | approval_record showing the data cut-off date and the period covered |
| The scope behind the information reported for this disclosure is applied consistently. | Parts of the organisation are silently in or out of scope, or the scope differs from the prior period without that change being explained. | methodology defining the scope and a site_register of what it covers |
| Everything in scope is included in the information reported for this disclosure — nothing material is left out. | Parts of the population that should be reported are omitted, understating or overstating the disclosure. | site_register of the full population vs the calculation_workbook of what was actually included |
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
- Asked the wrong owner
Teams sometimes ask the sustainability lead for a board-level answer, when the real source sits with the company secretary, board support team, or the committee that handles report sign-off.
- Used framework language instead of business terms
The request goes out in reporting jargon, so the recipient cannot map it to the organisation’s own approval process, committee names, or internal sign-off steps.
- Did not define the scope
People collect a generic answer without stating whether it covers the full report, only the material topics section, or just the parts that the board actually reviews.
- Mixed up the reporting period
The data pull uses the wrong cycle or meeting window, so the answer reflects a different reporting year than the one being disclosed.
- Blended different counting bases
One source counts every meeting, another counts only formal approvals, and the final pack merges them as if they were the same measure.
- Lost the source labels
Original file names, meeting references, version tags, or committee labels are stripped out, making it hard to trace which document supported the answer.
- Combined separate groups
Responses for the board, its committees, and other governance groups are merged into one bucket even though they should be kept distinct for the disclosure.
- Missed the evidence trail
The team captures the answer but not the supporting note, email, agenda, or minutes reference, so there is no clear audit path back to the source.
- No sign-off record
The draft answer is circulated informally and never gets a dated approval from the person who owns the governance process, leaving no proof of who confirmed it.
Where judgement is often needed
- Board sign-off sits with a committee, not the full board
If a committee or other sub-group does the detailed review, state whether the board itself still gives final sign-off or whether the committee’s approval is the organisation’s chosen control point, and describe that route clearly.
- Approval happens only for some reporting content
Where the board reviews the report but not every topic or annex in the same way, explain which parts it sees, which parts are handled elsewhere, and how you decided what counts as board-level approval.
- A new acquisition or disposal changes the reporting perimeter
If the group structure changed during the period, explain whether the board reviewed the report on the old or updated perimeter, and note any cut-off date or transition rule used to keep the narrative consistent.
- Different country teams use different local labels for the same oversight role
When governance titles or approval routes vary across jurisdictions, map the local process into your own operating language and disclose which entity or forum you treated as the approving body for the report.
- The board reviews the report after year-end but before publication
If the review and approval happen after the reporting period has closed, state the timing you used and make clear whether the board approved the final report version or only an earlier draft.
- Some material topics are still being finalised when the board reviews the report
If a few topics are based on estimates, late inputs, or draft analysis at the time of review, say so and explain how the board was able to approve the information despite those open points.
- Population at the edge of scope is included or excluded by judgement
Where a business unit, site, or joint arrangement sits near the boundary of what you report, explain the inclusion or exclusion choice and how that affected what the board saw before approval.
- Privacy rules mean the board sees grouped rather than person-level information
If sensitive information is aggregated before it reaches the board, describe the level of summarisation used and confirm that the board reviewed the same grouped version that appears in the report.
- The board’s review relies on estimates rather than direct measurement
When the approval pack uses estimates, proxies, or sampled data, disclose the basis for those figures and note any material areas where the board relied on management judgement rather than measured results.
- Rounding or presentation choices change the appearance of the approved figures
If rounding, percentage presentation, or table formatting affects the numbers the board sees, explain the convention used so readers can understand that the approved version matches the published one.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food processing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows a reporter where the board takes responsibility for review and approval, including the material topics, and describes a simple approval chain.
Synthetic example: Our board signs off the report after management has completed the draft and the material issues summary. The sustainability team prepares the pack, the audit committee checks the figures and wording, and the board gives final approval before publication.
- We use this route because the board is directly involved in reviewing the report and the topics we have judged to be most important.
- The review covers both the narrative and the material issues list, with any changes tracked through a final sign-off note.
Specialist logistics · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows a reporter where the board is not the approving body, and explains that the reason is delegation to another internal group.
Synthetic example: Our executive sustainability forum, not the board, reviews and approves the report and the material issues summary. We follow this approach because the board has delegated day-to-day sustainability oversight to that forum, while still receiving a brief update after publication.
- The forum checks the draft, challenges the material issues list, and authorises release once the finance and legal leads confirm the final version.
- The board is informed afterwards, but it does not carry out the approval step itself.
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
- Board review status — table: Whether the board-level group signed off the reported content, and whether it also considered the organisation’s key topics
- Approval route by governance level — bar: Which governance tier carried out the review and approval step, if more than one level was involved
- Review and approval process steps — stacked bar: The stages used to check, challenge and sign off the report before publication
- Reason no board sign-off was used — table: The stated explanation where the board-level group did not take responsibility for review and approval
- Governance responsibility split — donut: The share of reporting where the board-level group was responsible versus where another route was used
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
Our board signs off the sustainability report.
Better
Our board reviews and approves the report and our material topics through the audit and sustainability committees before publication.
Best
Our board and committees reviewed the full report, including our material topics, in Q2 2026 before sign-off; the board approved it after the committees checked the draft, and where a topic was not escalated to the board we used the committee route because it sat within delegated oversight.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 2-14 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P. | Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Colombia | 2024 | Partial | p. 134 →p. 135 →p. 133 → | ISA Integrated Management Report 2024 → | ey | |||||||||
Evidence in Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.’s reportWhat the report shows Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.'s 2024 Integrated Management Report includes coverage of the process for determining material topics, with a specific description found on page 143. The report also references the review and approval of information related to material topics by governance bodies on pages 135 and 136. However, there is no clear or quotable evidence regarding the methodology or narrative for item (a), indicating some aspects of the disclosure remain unclear.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
Rhenus Group | Ground Transportation — Trucking · Germany | 2024 | Exact | p. 49 →p. 48 →p. 45 → | Rhenus Group Sustainability Report 2024 → | — | |||||||||
Evidence in Rhenus Group’s reportWhat the report shows Rhenus Group's 2024 Sustainability Report includes a covered datapoint on the role of the highest governance body in overseeing the management of impacts, specifically noted on page 49. The report references material topics and the GRI content index across multiple pages (15, 26, 41, 42, 52), indicating attention to sustainability issues, but no clear narrative or methodology explanation for item (a) was found. Overall, the report provides some governance-related information but lacks explicit narrative detail for certain disclosure elements.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
Thai Beverage Public Company Limited | Food and Beverage Processing · Thailand | 2024 | Partial | p. 182 →p. 139 →p. 147 → | Sustainability Report 2024 → | LRQA | |||||||||
Evidence in Thai Beverage Public Company Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Thai Beverage Public Company Limited’s Sustainability Report 2024 includes reported values related to economic performance on page 180 and information about the highest governance body on page 182. The report also references management of material topics and governance and business ethics across pages 186, 187, 190, and 3, indicating coverage of economic and governance disclosures. However, the specific details of these values and governance roles are not clearly presented in the extracts, limiting clarity on the full extent of disclosure.
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
The reporting team has drafted the sustainability section and the board papers show that directors review the draft before it is signed off. The same papers also show the board checks the list of topics judged most important to the organisation.Should the disclosure say that the board reviews and approves the reported information, and should it describe how that review and approval happens?
Model answer. Yes. State that the board is involved in reviewing and approving the reported information, including the topics the organisation has identified as most important, and briefly explain the steps used in that review and approval process.
Why this matters. If the top governance group takes part, the report should say so and explain the process in plain terms.
A company’s sustainability report is approved by an audit committee, while the full board only receives a summary after publication. The material topic list is prepared by management and never goes to the board for sign-off.How should the disclosure be framed when the board itself does not review or approve the report content or the material topic list?
Model answer. Do not present the board as the reviewer or approver. Explain that another body handled the review and approval, and give the reason the board did not take that role in relation to the reported information and the material topic list.
Why this matters. When the board is not the decision-maker, the report should explain why that is the case.
The board approves the annual report as a whole, but sustainability content is checked only by management and an external writer. There is no board discussion of the material topic assessment, although the board does approve the final report pack.Does a general board sign-off on the report pack on its own answer the disclosure, or is more detail needed?
Model answer. More detail is needed. The disclosure should make clear whether the board actually reviewed and approved the sustainability information and the material topic selection; if it did, describe the process, and if it did not, explain why not.
Why this matters. A broad sign-off is not enough unless it clearly covers the sustainability information and the important topics behind it.
A group has a sustainability steering committee that prepares the content, but the board only receives the final draft for information and does not approve it. The team is unsure whether to mention the committee or focus only on the board.What should the preparer disclose about governance involvement in the reporting process?
Model answer. Disclose the real decision path. If the board did not review or approve the reported information, say that plainly and explain why; if a committee handled the review, describe that process instead of implying the board did the work.
Why this matters. Describe who actually reviewed the report and why, rather than implying board involvement that did not happen.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 2-14 — 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.
Related & explore
Organizational details Guide ✓Nomination and selection of the highest g… Guide ✓Chair of the highest governance body Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in ov… Guide ✓Delegation of responsibility for managing… Guide ✓Conflicts of interest Guide ✓Communication of critical concerns Guide ✓Collective knowledge of the highest gover… Guide ✓Evaluation of the performance of the high… Guide ✓Remuneration policies Guide ✓Entities included in the organization’s s… Guide ✓Process to determine remuneration Guide ✓Annual total compensation ratio Guide ✓Statement on sustainable development stra… Guide ✓Policy commitments Guide ✓Embedding policy commitments Guide ✓Processes to remediate negative impacts Guide ✓Mechanisms for seeking advice and raising… Guide ✓Compliance with laws and regulations Guide ✓Membership associations Guide ✓Approach to stakeholder engagement Guide ✓Reporting period, frequency and contact p… Guide ✓Collective bargaining agreements Guide ✓Restatements of information Guide ✓External assurance Guide ✓Activities, value chain and other busines… Guide ✓Employees Guide ✓Workers who are not employees Guide ✓Governance structure and composition Guide ✓
Questions this page answers
For GRI 2-14, what should I gather before drafting the disclosure if I need to explain the board approval process or why there was no board sign-off?
Use the page’s datapoints to prepare: the board approval process and the reason there was no board sign-off, if that applies. The explainer and step-by-step preparation section are there to help you turn that into a short, supportable draft. ↑ section
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 2-14 in practice?
Work through it as a drafting checklist: confirm the disclosure point, collect the two datapoints listed on the page, and then shape the narrative using the draft-output section. It is designed as practitioner guidance, not as a substitute for your own internal process. ↑ section
What evidence should I keep for GRI 2-14 if I want the disclosure to be assurance-ready?
The page says there is an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, plus four assurance claims to verify using claim, risk and evidence. Use those materials to build a file that shows how the disclosure was prepared and supported. ↑ section
What are the four assurance claims on the GRI 2-14 page and how do I use them?
The page flags four assurance claims to verify, each tied to a claim, a risk and evidence. Use them as a review list to check whether your draft is supported and whether any gaps need closing before sign-off. ↑ section
What common mistakes does the GRI 2-14 page warn about when reporting board approval process information?
The page includes a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful for a final quality check before you publish. Use it to spot missing detail, weak evidence or unclear wording in the draft. ↑ section
How should I assign ownership for the GRI 2-14 disclosure between ESG, HR, data owners and the company secretary or board team?
The page does not assign roles for you, but it is set up to help you identify who owns the board approval process information and who can provide the supporting evidence. In practice, use the workbook and evidence pack to agree ownership internally. ↑ section
Can I use the GRI 2-14 workbook to build the disclosure from scratch?
Yes. The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is intended to help you prepare the disclosure and organise the evidence needed for assurance readiness. ↑ section
What is the printable Library Card for GRI 2-14 and when would I use it?
The Download Centre includes a printable Library Card in .pdf format. It is a practical companion for working through the disclosure, especially if you want a quick reference while collecting data and checking the draft. ↑ section
Does the GRI 2-14 page include an example disclosure I can copy into my draft?
It includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table where relevant. Use them as a formatting and drafting aid only, and make sure your own figures and wording match your actual process. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 2-14 page content into a draft disclosure and content-index line?
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. Use those to shape a first draft, then check it against the evidence pack and the common gaps list before finalising. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 2-14 board approval process: what data do I need to collect?
- GRI 2-14 no board sign-off reason: how should I document it?
- GRI 2-14 assurance-ready evidence pack: what should be in it?
- GRI 2-14 common reporting gaps and mistakes checklist
- GRI 2-14 workbook download: how do I use the xlsx file?
- GRI 2-14 Library Card pdf: what is it for?
- GRI 2-14 illustrative example disclosure: how should I use the synthetic example?
- GRI 2-14 draft output: what narrative starters are available?
- GRI 2-14 content index line: how do I write one?
- GRI 2-14 from company reports: how do I use the linked examples?
- GRI 2-14 plain-language explainer: what does it help me understand?
- GRI 2-14 preparation steps: what should I do first?
✓ 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.
