GRI 2: General Disclosures · Universal Standard
Disclosure GRI 2-17
Collective knowledge of the highest governance body
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 ↓
4 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks you to explain how the highest governance body keeps itself informed and builds its collective understanding of the organisation. In practice, that means describing the main ways board or equivalent members gain knowledge relevant to their oversight role, such as briefings, training, site visits, external advice, or regular updates from management. The focus is on the body as a whole, not just on individual directors’ backgrounds.
The practical question is whether the governance body has enough shared knowledge to oversee the organisation properly across the full business, not only at flagship sites or headquarters. A useful response should show how learning and information flow cover the organisation’s material activities, risks and impacts, and whether the approach is broad enough to support informed decisions across operations, geographies and business units.
* 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 sustainability learning | Describe the actions taken during the reporting period to build the board’s shared understanding, capability and experience on sustainable development topics. Capture what was done, for whom, when it happened, and the main themes covered. | Board training plan, induction materials, workshop agendas, attendance records, director briefing packs, and minutes noting sustainability learning sessions. | Company secretariat / governance |
Show GRI 2-17 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Set out the steps used to build the board’s understanding, capability and experience on sustainable development.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Identify the board-level group covered by this disclosure and decide the reporting period and organisational boundary you will use for the statement.
- Set out what you will treat as a qualifying action: only measures that were taken to build that group’s shared understanding, capability, and practical experience on sustainable development.
- Gather the underlying support for each measure, such as training records, briefing notes, workshop materials, attendance logs, or other internal evidence that shows the action happened.
- Draft the disclosure as a short narrative that explains the measures taken, or as a structured list if that is clearer, making sure the wording matches the evidence you hold.
- Check whether any parts need to be left out or explained, and note any changes in approach, coverage, or reporting basis compared with the previous period.
- Compare the final wording against the official source to confirm you have covered the required point without adding extra claims or missing the core requirement.
Request board learning and development evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What actions have been taken to build the board and committee members’ knowledge, skills and experience on sustainable development during the reporting period?
Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the board, committee members, director training, induction, briefing, site visit, external course, or similar labels you already use. This is a possible LRA training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide evidence for the collective knowledge of the highest governance body.
Why it fails: It uses framework language that many internal teams will not recognise, gives no period, no source location, no internal labels, and does not say what records to pull. That makes it hard to action and hard to verify.
Better request
Please send the board and committee learning records for [reporting period] showing what was done to build directors’ and committee members’ knowledge, skills, and experience on sustainability topics. Use your normal activity names and send the source record, date, attendees, topic, format, and any short outcome note.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for board learning evidence for [reporting period] Dear [name/team], We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need a short evidence extract covering the actions taken during [reporting period] to build the board and committee members’ knowledge, skills, and experience on sustainable development. Please send, for each relevant activity: - the activity name used internally - date or date range - who attended - topic covered - format or delivery method - source record or document link - any brief note on the purpose or outcome If you hold this in a board portal, governance tracker, or training log, a download or screenshot is fine. Please use your organisation’s own wording first, then we will map it for reporting. This is a possible LRA training template; please adapt it to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off. Many thanks, [preparer name] [team] [contact details]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you share the board learning evidence for [reporting period]? We need the activities that built directors’/committee members’ knowledge, skills, and experience on sustainability topics. A simple extract with activity name, date, attendees, topic, format, and source link is enough. Please use your internal labels. This is a possible LRA training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. The board receives quarterly site and safety briefings, plus an annual sustainability workshop.
Adapted request. Please share the board learning log for [reporting period], including any site briefings, workshops, or external sessions that helped directors and committee members build knowledge on climate, energy, workforce, and supply chain topics. Use the names you use internally and include dates, attendees, topic, format, and source record.
Example response. Board workshop on energy transition, 14 May 2025; attendees: 7 directors; format: external facilitator session; source: board portal pack link; outcome note: agreed follow-up briefing on capital planning.
Financial services
Context. The board and risk committee receive briefings on climate risk, conduct, and responsible lending.
Adapted request. Please provide the governance learning records for [reporting period] covering briefings or training for directors and committee members on climate risk, customer outcomes, conduct, and wider sustainability matters. Please include the internal session title, date, attendees, delivery method, and the record location.
Example response. Risk committee sustainability briefing, 22 Oct 2025; attendees: 5 committee members; format: internal briefing; source: committee papers folder; outcome note: requested deeper dive on transition risk scenarios.
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 what counted as a board learning activity, which governance groups were included, and the basis used to record the information, such as formal sessions, informal briefings or external engagements.
Context note
Describe what the figures show about how the board is being supported to strengthen its understanding of sustainability issues and how this fits with the organisation’s governance approach.
Fluctuation statement
If the pattern changed from the prior period, note whether this was due to more sessions, different formats, changes in attendance, or a shift in the topics covered.
Content index entry
GRI 2-17 Collective knowledge of the highest governance body — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 2-17. 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
- Wrong owner
The request goes to the wrong team or person, so the board learning record is chased from a function that never held the source evidence.
- Framework language only
The data call is written in reporting jargon instead of the organisation’s own terms, and the people who run the training or development activity do not recognise what is being asked for.
- No scope set
The collector never states which directors, committee members, or other board-level participants are in scope, so different teams send different populations.
- No time basis
The request does not pin the period or cut-off date, so one source gives current-year activity while another sends a different reporting window.
- Mixed counting basis
Some inputs are counted as sessions, others as people, and the final file blends them without separating the basis used for each figure.
- Source labels lost
The original names from registers, attendance logs, or learning records are stripped out, making it impossible to trace each item back to the source file.
- Separate groups merged
Board members and committee members, or other distinct groups, are rolled into one total even though they should be kept apart for collection and review.
- Missing evidence trail
The file is saved without the supporting note, date stamp, or sign-off history, so no one can show who checked the data and when.
Where judgement is often needed
- Board changes mid-year
If directors or committee members join or leave during the period, explain whether you describe the full year, the end-of-period position, or only the people in post when the learning activity happened.
- Different country job titles for the same role
Where local titles vary across markets, use your own internal role map and state how you grouped people so the board-level learning picture is consistent across locations.
- People on the edge of the governance group
If someone attends meetings or advises the board but is not part of the core decision-making group, set out whether they are included in the count of people whose knowledge you are describing and why.
- Training delivered before or after a governance change
When a merger, acquisition, disposal, or reorganisation changes the board or its committees, explain which structure the learning activity relates to and whether you have restated earlier activity to match the new group.
- Mix of formal learning and informal exposure
If the update comes from courses, site visits, briefings, mentoring, or other exposure, describe the basis you used to decide what counts as a knowledge-building measure and keep that basis consistent.
- Measured attendance versus estimated participation
If attendance or completion is not fully tracked, say whether the figure is taken from records or estimated, explain the method used, and note any material gaps in coverage.
- Privacy limits on small groups
Where naming individuals would create a privacy issue, present the information in grouped form and explain the aggregation rule you used so the board can still understand the scope of the learning activity.
- Rounding and partial-year reporting
If you round counts or only report part of the year, state the rounding approach and the period covered so readers can see how the final figure was built.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Utilities · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic illustration only: this shows how a reporter might describe actions taken to strengthen the board’s sustainability knowledge, skills, and experience without naming the organisation.
We use a structured programme to build the board’s and committee members’ understanding of sustainability matters that affect long-term value. - In the reporting year, 9 of 9 directors took part in at least one session on climate risk, workforce issues, and responsible supply chains, and 7 of 9 also joined an external site visit or stakeholder briefing. - The board completed 18 hours of group learning in total, averaging 2 hours per director, and 100% of directors received at least one update on sustainable development topics.
Consumer goods · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic illustration only: this example shows a different plausible reporter describing how it supported the board’s learning on sustainable development matters.
We ran a year-long learning plan to deepen the directors’ practical understanding of sustainability topics relevant to our business. - All 11 board members attended at least one briefing, 8 completed a half-day workshop on circularity and labour practices, and 6 joined an external expert session on climate transition. - Across the year, the board logged 26 hours of sustainability-focused learning, with every director receiving tailored material before each meeting where these topics were discussed.
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 learning activities by type — table: A simple listing of the actions used to build directors’ understanding of sustainability topics, such as briefings, workshops, site visits or external sessions.
- Governance training over the reporting period — line: How the number or frequency of learning activities for board members changed across the period, if the reporter has time-based data.
- Learning methods used for the board — bar: A comparison of the different ways the board was supported to build knowledge and experience on sustainability matters.
- Participation across governance groups — stacked bar: A breakdown of learning activities by the board and any committee-level participants, where the data distinguish between governance groups.
- Topics covered in board development — donut: The share of learning activity focused on different sustainability subjects, if the dataset includes topic categories.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We provided one briefing on sustainable development to the board and its committees.
Better
We gave the board and committee members two learning sessions on sustainable development, using internal and external speakers.
Best
We ran three sustainable development sessions for directors and committee members this year, covering climate, people and supply-chain topics, and the increase from last year reflects a planned training refresh after a board skills review.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 2-17 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
First Financial Holding Co., Ltd. | Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Taiwan | 2024 | Exact | p. 29 →p. 229 →p. 125 → | 2024 Sustainability Report → | PwC | ||||||
Evidence in First Financial Holding Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows First Financial Holding Co., Ltd.'s 2024 Sustainability Report includes a covered datapoint on the collective knowledge and performance evaluation of the highest governing body, referenced on page 29. The report also mentions the Sustainable Development Committee and Risk Management Committee overseeing key climate strategies on page 125. However, the evidence map does not clarify the extent of detail or specific outcomes related to the governing body's performance evaluation, leaving some aspects 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
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Acer Incorporated | Technology Hardware and Equipment · Taiwan | 2024 | Exact | p. 145 →p. 93 →p. 18 → | 2024 Acer Sustainability Report → | SGS Taiwan; KPMG (financial data) | ||||||
Evidence in Acer Incorporated’s reportWhat the report shows Acer Incorporated's 2024 Sustainability Report includes a covered narrative item related to the collective knowledge of the highest governance body, specifically addressing corporate governance and evaluation of performance on page 145. However, the report does not provide further detailed data or findings related to this disclosure, leaving other aspects unclear or missing. No additional quantitative or qualitative information is evident from the provided evidence.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation., Ltd. | Food Production — Agricultural · Thailand | 2024 | Exact | p. 207 →p. 42 →p. 23 → | Sustainability Report 2024 → | SGS | ||||||
Evidence in Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation's Sustainability Report 2024 provides a covered narrative on the collective knowledge of the highest governance body, specifically noted on page 207. This indicates some level of disclosure related to governance evaluation. However, other specific datapoints or detailed findings related to this disclosure are not evident or remain unclear from the provided evidence.
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 board has had two induction sessions this year, one on climate-related oversight and one on social impact topics. A preparer is deciding whether to mention these sessions even though no formal skills matrix was updated.Should the narrative include these learning actions as evidence of how the board’s shared understanding was strengthened?
Model answer. Yes. The disclosure is about actions taken to build the board’s combined understanding, capability and experience on sustainable development matters. Training, briefings and similar development steps are relevant even if they were not captured in a separate skills matrix, as long as the description stays focused on what was done.
Why this matters. Include practical development steps that improved the board’s shared capability on sustainability topics.
A company has a director who already has deep sustainability expertise, but the rest of the board has only limited exposure. The draft currently describes that one person’s background in detail and says little about the wider board.Is it enough to describe one expert director’s background, or should the report show how the wider board’s knowledge was developed?
Model answer. It should show the collective picture, not just one person’s credentials. The point is to explain measures that helped the board as a group build understanding, skills and experience, so a single expert’s profile is not a substitute for describing broader learning or development across the board.
Why this matters. Focus on the board as a whole, not only on one knowledgeable individual.
During the year, the board received a site visit, a supplier briefing and a workshop led by an external adviser. The preparer is unsure whether these count because they were not all formal training courses.Can these activities be used in the disclosure if they helped directors learn about sustainable development issues?
Model answer. Yes. The narrative can cover different kinds of development activity if they were intended to strengthen the board’s shared knowledge on sustainability matters. The key is to describe the measures taken in plain language and make clear how they contributed to learning.
Why this matters. Any genuine learning activity can be relevant if it helped build the board’s sustainability understanding.
The sustainability report already explains board composition and committee structure. The preparer is considering copying those sections into the knowledge disclosure to save time.Should the disclosure repeat governance structure details, or stay centred on the actions taken to build knowledge?
Model answer. It should stay centred on the learning measures. Board structure and committee arrangements may provide context elsewhere, but this item is about what the organisation did to improve the board’s shared understanding, skills and experience on sustainable development.
Why this matters. Keep this disclosure focused on development actions, not general governance structure.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 2-17 — 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 ✓Role of the highest governance body in su… Guide ✓Conflicts of interest Guide ✓Communication of critical concerns 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 2-17, what exactly should I gather for board sustainability learning before I start drafting the disclosure?
The page says the key datapoint to prepare is board sustainability learning, so start by identifying what learning activity is relevant and what evidence you have for it. Use the step-by-step preparation section to turn that into a clear scope, owner and draft input. ↑ section
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 2-17 in practice?
Use it as a working sequence rather than a reference note: define what you are reporting, collect the relevant data, check the assurance claims, and then build the draft output. The page is designed to help you move from raw information to a report-ready disclosure. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 2-17 data collection if board sustainability learning sits with HR, the company secretary or ESG?
The page does not assign a fixed owner, so the practical approach is to name the person who can gather the source evidence and confirm the final figures or narrative. The workbook and evidence-pack sections are there to help that owner coordinate inputs and keep an audit trail. ↑ section
What evidence should I keep in the GRI 2-17 assurance pack to support board sustainability learning?
The page says there is an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, so you should use those items to assemble the documents that support the disclosure. It also highlights four assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence angle. ↑ section
What are the four assurance claims I need to check for GRI 2-17, and how do I use them?
The page includes four assurance claims to verify, each framed around a claim, risk and evidence check. In practice, use them to test whether the disclosure is supported, whether there are gaps, and whether the evidence pack is strong enough for review. ↑ section
What are the most common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 2-17?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is meant to help you spot weak scope, missing evidence or an unclear draft before submission. Use that section as a final quality check against the data, narrative and supporting documents. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 2-17 data into a draft disclosure quickly?
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line, which gives you a ready structure for drafting. Start with the narrative starter, add the relevant data, and then use the content-index line to place it in the report. ↑ section
Can I use the synthetic illustrative example for GRI 2-17 as a template for my own board sustainability learning disclosure?
Yes, but only as a synthetic example to show how the disclosure can be presented. Treat it as a formatting and logic aid, then replace it with your own internally consistent data and evidence. ↑ section
Where do I find the GRI 2-17 workbook and printable card, and what are they for?
The Download Centre includes 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 card as a quick reference while drafting. ↑ section
How can I use the 'From company reports' table for GRI 2-17 without treating it like a rulebook?
The table links to real published reports where the topic is disclosed, so it is best used as a practical reference for how others have presented similar information. It is not presented as a requirement, just a way to see examples in context. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 2-17 board sustainability learning: what data do I need before drafting?
- GRI 2-17: how do I scope board sustainability learning for reporting?
- GRI 2-17 evidence pack: what should be in it for assurance readiness?
- GRI 2-17 common mistakes: what should I check before sign-off?
- GRI 2-17 workbook: how do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook?
- GRI 2-17 draft disclosure: how do I use the narrative starters and content-index line?
- GRI 2-17 synthetic example: how should I read the illustrative disclosure table?
- GRI 2-17 board sustainability learning: who usually owns the evidence and sign-off?
- GRI 2-17 assurance claims: how do I test claim, risk and evidence?
- GRI 2-17: how do I use the company report links to benchmark my draft?
- GRI 2-17: what should I include in the final evidence trail for review?
- GRI 2-17: how do I avoid leaving the disclosure too generic or unsupported?
✓ 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.
