GRI 2: General Disclosures · Universal Standard
Disclosure GRI 2-18
Evaluation of the performance 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
5 datapoints ↓
4 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks you to explain how the organisation checks and judges the performance of its highest governance body. In practice, that means describing the process used to assess whether the board or equivalent body is doing its job effectively, what aspects are reviewed, and how often the review happens. The focus is on the evaluation approach itself, not on giving a general description of the body’s responsibilities.
The practical question is whether the assessment covers the whole governance body in a meaningful way, rather than only selected members or a one-off exercise. You should make clear who carries out the evaluation, what information is used, and how the results are acted on. If the review is limited in scope, say so plainly; if it applies across the full body, explain that too.
* 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 review process | A plain description of how the board’s performance review is carried out when judging how well it oversees the organisation’s effects on the economy, environment and people. Capture the steps used, who is involved, and what the review looks at. | Board evaluation policy, committee papers, annual governance review pack, minutes, or a board effectiveness review report. | Company secretariat / governance |
| Review independence status | Whether the board performance review is carried out by people who are independent or by people with a direct connection to the board or management. Capture the basis used to classify it one way or the other. | Terms of reference, external adviser engagement letter, governance policy, or board evaluation report stating who performed the review. | Company secretariat / governance |
| Review timing | How often the board performance review happens, using the actual cadence applied in practice for the reporting period. Capture the interval and any stated cycle used by the organisation. | Board calendar, governance timetable, committee workplan, annual report drafting notes, or review schedule. | Company secretariat / governance |
| Follow-up actions | The actions taken after the review, including any changes made to the board’s make-up. Capture what was changed, approved, or implemented as a result of the evaluation. | Board minutes, nominations committee papers, action tracker, governance change log, or succession planning records. | Company secretariat / governance |
| Practice changes | The actions taken after the review that changed how the organisation operates, excluding board membership changes. Capture the practical changes made to policies, routines, controls, or ways of working. | Management action tracker, policy update log, internal control changes, board papers, or implementation status reports. | Company secretariat / governance |
Show GRI 2-18 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Set out what changed after the review, including any shifts in board membership or structure.
- Set out what changed after the review in the way the organisation works and is run.
- Explain how the board’s performance is assessed when it is overseeing how the organisation handles its economic, environmental and social impacts.
- State how often these reviews take place.
- State whether the review is carried out independently or not.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: confirm which governing group you are describing and make sure the disclosure covers how its performance is assessed in relation to the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts.
- Define what counts as an evaluation for this disclosure. Use one consistent internal meaning for the review process, and separate it from other board or committee activities that are not part of the performance assessment itself.
- Gather the source material that shows how the assessment is carried out. Typical support would be board papers, committee minutes, review schedules, governance reports, or other internal records that explain the process and timing.
- Compile the required content in plain language: explain the assessment process, state whether the review is carried out independently or not, and give the review frequency. Keep the wording factual and specific.
- Record what changed as a result of the assessments. Include any follow-up actions, and make sure you cover both changes to the make-up of the governing group and changes to company practices where relevant.
- Check the draft against the official source before sign-off. Confirm that every required point is covered, nothing extra has been added, and any exclusions, changes in approach, or wording choices are clearly explained in the working papers.
Request the board evaluation evidence pack
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How does the board review its own performance, how often does that happen, and what changed as a result?
Use your organisation’s own terms first — for example, board review, director appraisal, committee review, governance effectiveness review, or similar — then map those terms to the disclosure wording before sign-off.
Weak request
Please send the GRI 2-18 evidence showing how the highest governance body is evaluated, whether the evaluations are independent, how often they occur, and what actions were taken.
Why it fails: This uses framework language only, so the owner has to translate it before they can respond. It also does not say which internal records to pull, what period to cover, or what counts as useful evidence for the report.
Better request
Please send the board or committee review pack for [period] that shows how governance performance is checked, whether the review is internal or independent, how often it happens, and what follow-up actions were agreed, including any changes to board or committee membership and any updates to governance processes. Please include the source document and the wording we should use in the report, using your normal internal terms.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for board review evidence for sustainability reporting Hi [Name], I’m pulling together the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the board review evidence for [reporting period]. Could you please share, or point me to, the material that covers: - how the board or equivalent governance group reviews its performance on oversight of the organisation’s impacts on the economy, environment, and people; - whether the review is carried out internally, with outside support, or by an independent party; - how often the review takes place; and - any follow-up actions, including changes to board or committee membership and any updates to governance practices. Please include the source document, the period covered, and any notes needed to explain the wording we should use in the report. If helpful, you can return it in the table format below. Please adapt this to your organisation’s own language and check the source material before sign-off. Thanks, [Your name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [Name] — could you share the board review / governance effectiveness evidence for [period]? I need the source note or report, how often it happens, whether it’s internal or independent, and any actions that came out of it, including board/committee changes or process updates. Please use your usual internal terms and I’ll map them for the report. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A group board receives an annual governance effectiveness review from an external adviser, with actions tracked by the company secretariat.
Adapted request. Please share the annual board effectiveness review pack for [period], including the external adviser’s report, the review cycle, whether the review was independent, and the action log showing any changes to board membership or governance routines.
Example response. Source: Board effectiveness review report; period: FY2025; review method: externally facilitated; independence status: independent support; review frequency: annual; actions: refreshed committee membership, shortened agenda packs, updated skills matrix; source reference: Secretariat action tracker.
Financial services
Context. A regulated firm runs a yearly chair-led board review and follows up through a governance actions register.
Adapted request. Please provide the chair-led board review summary for [period], the cadence of the review, whether any outside input was used, and the resulting actions recorded in the governance actions register, including any committee reshaping or process changes.
Example response. Source: Board review summary and governance actions register; period: FY2025; review method: chair-led with internal support; independence status: not independent; review frequency: annual; actions: revised committee terms, added one non-executive director, changed meeting timetable; source reference: Secretariat register and board minutes.
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 how the organisation defines the board review process, whether the assessment is carried out internally or by an outside party, and how often it is performed.
Context note
Set out what the figures show about how the board is checked on its oversight of the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts, and what kinds of follow-up actions result.
Fluctuation statement
If the review method, timing, or follow-up actions changed during the period, briefly note what changed and why the pattern differs from earlier reporting.
Content index entry
GRI 2-18 Evaluation of the performance of the highest governance body — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 2-18. 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
- Asking the wrong owner
The request goes to a board secretary or sustainability lead when the actual evidence sits with the chair, committee chairs, or the team that runs the review process.
- Using framework language in the ask
People are asked for a governance-body evaluation in reporting terms, so they return the wrong pack instead of the organisation’s own review notes, board papers, or appraisal records.
- Leaving the scope vague
The team does not pin down which directors, committees, or review cycle are in scope, so different contributors send data for different populations.
- Mixing the time basis
One source uses the reporting year, another uses the calendar year, and the final dataset blends them without a clear cut-off date.
- Combining separate populations
Results for the board and its committees are merged into one file even though the underlying review process, frequency, or follow-up actions differ.
- Losing the original source labels
Extracted figures or notes are copied into a working sheet without the source document name, version, or line reference, so the trail back to the original record is lost.
- Confusing the counting basis
The team mixes counts of review events, counts of people reviewed, and counts of actions taken, which makes the dataset internally inconsistent.
- Dropping the evidence trail
The file contains the answer but not the supporting metadata, such as who supplied it, when it was pulled, and which version was checked.
- Skipping sign-off
Draft data is passed straight into reporting without a named reviewer confirming that the source, scope, and interpretation all match the organisation’s records.
Where judgement is often needed
- What counts as the review process
Set out the actual steps your board and committee members use to assess how well they oversee the organisation’s impacts on people, planet and the economy, and explain any material differences between entities or countries in how that review is run.
- Independent or internal review
State whether the assessment is carried out by people outside the board or by the board itself, and if the approach changes across parts of the group, explain the basis for the split.
- How often the review happens
Choose a clear timing basis for the reporting period, such as annual or more frequent cycles, and disclose it consistently if the cadence differs by business unit, country or committee.
- What to do when the group changes mid-year
If acquisitions, disposals or restructurings change which directors or committees sit within scope, explain the cut-off used and whether the reported process reflects the opening, closing or average structure for the period.
- Different local meanings for the same practice
Where the same governance practice is described differently in different jurisdictions, use the organisation’s own operating language and explain how you mapped those local terms into one group-wide description.
- Which follow-up actions to include
Describe the actions that came out of the review, making clear whether you are covering only changes to board membership and committee structure or also wider changes to policies, controls and working practices.
- Using estimates versus direct records
If the review information is not fully captured in one system, explain any estimates, judgement-based summaries or manual consolidation used, and note where the figures or descriptions were taken from.
- Rounding and small-number handling
Apply one rounding approach across the disclosure, and if rounding or suppression changes the visible totals, explain the method so readers can reconcile the narrative with the underlying counts.
- Protecting personal data in the write-up
When the review involves named individuals or small groups, aggregate or anonymise the information enough to avoid identifying people, while still showing the nature, timing and outcome of the evaluation.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
Illustrative only: shows an independent annual board review, the kinds of evidence used, and how findings can lead to both board refreshment and changes in day-to-day management routines.
Synthetic illustration only. Each year, our board and committee chairs are reviewed through an external board-effectiveness process led by an independent adviser, with the full board receiving a summary of findings and a follow-up action plan.
- The review looks at how well the board oversees our economic, environmental and social impact, using interviews, document checks and a skills-gap assessment.
- The assessment is independent and is carried out annually; in the latest cycle, 9 of 11 directors were judged to meet expectations, and 2 were asked to complete targeted development.
- In response, we refreshed one committee seat, added a director with climate-risk experience, and changed our operating routines by tightening agenda time for impact oversight, introducing quarterly progress tracking, and updating management reporting templates.
Healthcare services · synthetic · written by LRA
Illustrative only: shows a blended review model, distinguishes independent from internal assessment, and links results to both board changes and operational practice changes.
Synthetic illustration only. Our group uses a mixed review process for the board: every second year an outside facilitator runs the assessment, and in the intervening year the company secretary coordinates an internal check with input from directors and senior leaders.
- The review considers how the board is steering our economic, environmental and social impact, and the latest cycle covered attendance, decision quality, committee papers and follow-through on prior actions.
- The external cycle is independent; the internal cycle is not. Overall evaluations are completed annually, with the most recent round showing 7 of 8 directors contributing fully and 1 needing additional support on sustainability oversight.
- After the review, we changed board composition by appointing one non-executive director with public-health expertise, and we adjusted organisational practice by adding a standing impact review to monthly executive meetings and revising escalation routes for material issues.
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 board review is carried out — table: A concise summary of the review approach used to assess directors’ oversight of the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts.
- Review independence by year — bar: A comparison of whether each assessment was carried out by an external party or through an internal process, shown across reporting periods.
- Assessment frequency over time — line: How often the board’s performance review takes place in each reporting period, to show the regularity of the process.
- Follow-up actions from the review — stacked bar: The mix of responses taken after each assessment, separating changes to board membership from changes to business practices.
- Actions taken after board evaluation — donut: The proportion of post-review actions that relate to board composition versus wider organisational practice changes.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We review the board’s performance each year.
Better
We assess the board and committee members annually through an external review, and we use the findings to adjust board membership and our working practices.
Best
We assess the board and its committees annually through an independent review covering how they oversee our economic, environmental and social impacts, and we have used the latest findings to refresh one board seat and tighten our reporting routines because the review showed clearer skills coverage was needed.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 2-18 — 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 | Related | p. 137 →p. 134 →p. 139 → | 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 does not provide any quotable evidence related to the disclosure in question. There are no narrative items or datapoints found in the report that address this specific disclosure. Consequently, the report lacks coverage or clarity on this topic.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Acer Incorporated | Technology Hardware and Equipment · Taiwan | 2024 | Exact | p. 145 →p. 95 →p. 15 → | 2024 Acer Sustainability Report → | SGS Taiwan; KPMG (financial data) | ||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Acer Incorporated’s reportWhat the report shows Acer Incorporated’s 2024 Sustainability Report provides clear evidence that the highest governance body oversees the management of impacts, with detailed references to corporate governance roles and delegation on page 145. The report also states that the Audit and Remuneration Committees are composed entirely of independent directors, as noted on page 33. However, while some communication channels and their frequencies are mentioned on page 22, there is no headline value or comprehensive data on stakeholder engagement, and no additional narrative items were found elsewhere in the report.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Berli Jucker Public Company Limited | Food and Consumer Staples Retailing · Thailand | 2024 | Partial | p. 202 →p. 201 →p. 27 → | Sustainability Report 2024 → | LRQA | ||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Berli Jucker Public Company Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Berli Jucker Public Company Limited’s Sustainability Report 2024 provides specific information on the role and oversight responsibilities of the highest governance body (p.201) and details the report’s coverage period from 1 January to 31 December 2024 (p.200). The report includes some context on internal and third-party evaluations aligned with the Amfori Business Social Compliance Initiative, though it lacks headline values for these assessments (p.87). However, there is no clear evidence regarding certain narrative items such as policies on gifts and entertainment beyond partial context (p.29), and some expected disclosures are not found in the report.
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’s annual review is run by the company secretary using a questionnaire completed by directors and committee chairs. The draft note says the review looks at how well the board oversees the business’s effects on the economy, the environment and people, but it does not say whether anyone outside the board helped.What should you check before finalising the disclosure about how the review is carried out?
Model answer. You should explain the review process in plain terms and make clear whether it is carried out with outside independence or entirely within the organisation. If the process is internal, say so; if an external party is involved, say that the review is independent. The description should focus on how the board’s performance is assessed in relation to oversight of the organisation’s impacts.
Why this matters. Readers need enough detail to understand the review method and whether it is independent or internal.
A preparer has confirmed that the directors are assessed every two years, but the draft only says the review is “regular” and gives no timing. The same draft also mentions that the audit committee feeds into the process, but not how often the assessment happens.How should you handle the timing information for the evaluation?
Model answer. State the actual cadence of the assessment, such as annual or every two years, rather than using a vague label like regular. The frequency belongs in the disclosure because users need to know how often the board’s performance is reviewed.
Why this matters. The timing of the assessment should be stated clearly and specifically.
After the latest review, two directors were not re-nominated and the board introduced a new sustainability training session for all committee members. The draft note mentions the training but leaves out the board changes, even though the review led to both actions.What actions should be included when describing the response to the evaluation?
Model answer. Include the follow-up actions that came out of the review, both the change in board membership and the change in working practices. In this case, that means explaining the non-reappointment of the two directors and the new training session, because both are responses to the assessment.
Why this matters. Describe the concrete changes that followed the review, including any changes to board makeup and to how the organisation works.
The governance team has a short paragraph saying the board review led to a revised agenda format and a new skills matrix for future appointments. However, the paragraph does not link those changes back to the evaluation, and it also omits whether the review covered the board’s oversight of impacts on people, the environment and the economy.What should the preparer make sure is clear in the final wording?
Model answer. Make the link between the evaluation and the resulting actions explicit, and keep the focus on the board’s oversight of the organisation’s impacts. The final wording should show that the revised agenda format and the new skills matrix were responses to the review, not unrelated governance updates.
Why this matters. The disclosure should connect the evaluation to the actions taken and keep the subject matter tied to oversight of impacts.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 2-18 — 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 ✓Collective knowledge of the highest gover… 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 2-18, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?
The page says to prepare five datapoints: the board review process, whether the review was independent, when the review happened, what follow-up actions were taken, and what practice changes resulted. Use those as your starting data set before you write the narrative. ↑ section
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 2-18?
Use it as a practical workflow to move from scoping the disclosure to collecting evidence and drafting the output. The page is designed to help you prepare the disclosure in a structured way rather than leaving it as a free-text exercise. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 2-18 data collection and sign-off in practice?
The page does not assign roles, but it is written for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers to work from the same pack. In practice, you would use the page to coordinate ownership of the board review data, evidence pack, and draft output. ↑ section
What evidence should I keep for GRI 2-18 so the disclosure is assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness, alongside four assurance claims to verify. Use those materials to show how each datapoint was sourced and checked before the disclosure is finalised. ↑ section
What are the four assurance claims in the GRI 2-18 page and how do I use them?
The page says there are four claims to verify, each with a claim, risk, and evidence angle. Use them as a checklist to test whether the disclosure is supported, where the weak points are, and what evidence you need to retain. ↑ section
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes for GRI 2-18?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes to help you avoid weak or incomplete disclosures. Use that section as a pre-submission check so you can spot missing datapoints, thin evidence, or unclear wording before drafting is final. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 2-18 data into a draft disclosure?
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That gives you a practical way to turn the prepared data into a first draft rather than starting from a blank page. ↑ section
Can I use the synthetic example disclosure on the GRI 2-18 page as a template?
Yes, as an illustrative guide only. The page includes synthetic example disclosures, including a quantitative table, so you can see how the information might be presented, but you should adapt it to your own data and evidence. ↑ section
How should I use the workbook download for GRI 2-18?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. Use it to organise the preparation steps, evidence, and assurance checks in one place before you draft the disclosure. ↑ section
What is the printable Library Card PDF for GRI 2-18 used for?
The Download Centre also provides a printable Library Card in PDF format. It is there as a practical companion to the page content, so you can keep the key preparation and assurance points to hand while working on the disclosure. ↑ section
Does the GRI 2-18 page show real published report examples I can compare against?
Yes. The page includes a 'From company reports' table that links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed, which you can use as a reference point when shaping your own draft. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 2-18 board review process: what should I ask the board secretary or HR team for?
- GRI 2-18 review independence status: how do I evidence whether the review was independent?
- GRI 2-18 review timing: what date range or period should I capture?
- GRI 2-18 follow-up actions: how do I describe actions taken after the review?
- GRI 2-18 practice changes: what counts as a practice change for the disclosure draft?
- GRI 2-18 evidence pack: what are the five items I need to file for assurance?
- GRI 2-18 common mistakes: what are the most likely gaps in a first draft?
- GRI 2-18 workbook: how do I use the xlsx to track claims, evidence and draft text?
- GRI 2-18 narrative starters: what wording prompts does the page give for the draft?
- GRI 2-18 content index line: how do I build the index entry from the page?
- GRI 2-18 synthetic example table: how should I read the quantitative example without copying it?
- GRI 2-18 company report links: how do I use the linked examples without treating them as a template?
✓ 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.
