GRI 2: General Disclosures · Universal Standard
Disclosure GRI 2-25
Processes to remediate negative impacts
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
6 datapoints ↓
4 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it deals with negative impacts it has caused or contributed to, or that are directly linked to its activities. In practice, the focus is on the process: how issues are identified, how decisions are made about what needs fixing, and how the organisation follows through on remediation. It is not just about saying that problems can be addressed; it is about showing the approach used to put things right.
The practical emphasis is on whether those processes are available across the organisation’s relevant operations and relationships, not only at a few visible or flagship sites. A useful explanation would cover who can raise issues, how cases are assessed, what remedies may be used, and how the organisation checks that remediation has happened. The aim is to show a real, working system rather than a one-off response to isolated incidents.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remedy commitments | State the organisation’s commitments to put right, or help put right, negative impacts it has identified as caused or contributed to by its activities. Capture the commitment itself, the type of remedy promised, and whether the organisation will act directly or work with others. | Board-approved policy, remediation framework, case logs, legal/claims records, and action plans showing agreed remedy commitments. | Legal / Human Rights / Sustainability |
| Grievance handling | Describe the organisation’s method for receiving, assessing and responding to complaints, including any channels it runs itself or uses with others. Capture the mechanism type, who can use it, and the basic handling process. | Grievance procedure, hotline or portal records, supplier/community complaint logs, and governance papers for any shared or third-party channels. | Legal / Compliance / Human Rights |
| Other remedy routes | Set out any other ways the organisation helps fix negative impacts it has identified as caused or contributed to, beyond formal grievance channels. Capture the route used, when it applies, and how it links to the identified impact. | Remediation process maps, incident response procedures, settlement or repair records, and internal case files showing non-grievance remedy routes. | Legal / Human Rights / Operations |
| User involvement | Explain how the people meant to use the grievance channels help shape them, check them and improve them over time. Capture who is involved, at which stages they participate, and what input they provide. | Consultation notes, user feedback summaries, co-design workshop records, review meeting minutes, and change logs showing user input on the mechanism. | Human Rights / Stakeholder Engagement / Operations |
| Effectiveness monitoring | Describe how the organisation checks whether grievance channels and other remedy routes are working as intended. Capture the measures used, how often they are reviewed, and who reviews the results. | KPI dashboards, case-resolution reports, audit or assurance findings, management review packs, and follow-up actions from monitoring results. | Human Rights / Internal Audit / Compliance |
| Effectiveness examples | Provide concrete examples showing whether the grievance channels and other remedy routes have worked, including what stakeholders said about them. Capture the case outcome, the evidence of success or failure, and the feedback received from users. | Closed-case examples, stakeholder survey results, interview notes, complaint follow-up records, and post-resolution feedback forms. | Human Rights / Stakeholder Engagement / Operations |
Show GRI 2-25 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Set out how you monitor whether complaint-handling and remedy routes are working well, and whether they lead to the intended outcome.
- Explain how the people meant to use those routes help shape them, check them, run them, and make them better.
- Set out your method for spotting and dealing with complaints, including any channels you run yourself or take part in.
- State the commitments you make to fix, or help fix, harm you have caused or helped cause.
- Describe any other ways you use to put right, or help put right, harm you have caused or helped cause.
- Give examples showing how well these routes and remedies work in practice, including what users say about them.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the boundary for the disclosure first: decide which parts of the organisation, which grievance routes, and which remedy arrangements are in scope for this reporting period, so you do not mix in unrelated processes.
- List the channels and arrangements you actually use to hear concerns and put things right, including any systems you run yourself and any external or shared routes you take part in.
- Gather the source material that shows what the organisation says it will do when it has caused or helped cause harm, together with the records that show how those commitments are applied in practice.
- Capture how affected stakeholders are brought into the design, checking, day-to-day running, and improvement of the relevant complaint or remedy routes, using meeting notes, consultation records, user input, or similar evidence.
- Explain how you monitor whether the complaint and remedy routes are working, and include concrete examples of results, such as user feedback or other signs that the process is effective.
- Before finalising, compare the draft against the official source to confirm you have covered every required point, and note any exclusions, changes, or limitations in the way the information is presented.
Request the grievance and remedy process evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What processes do we use to handle complaints, fix harm, and show how we check whether those processes are working?
Use your organisation’s own names first for complaint routes, case handling, remedy, escalation, and stakeholder engagement, then map them to the disclosure. Keep the wording in your internal language rather than using framework terms in the request.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 2-25 grievance mechanism and remediation process evidence, including stakeholder involvement and effectiveness tracking.
Why it fails: This uses framework language that many internal owners will not recognise, so it is harder to route, harder to answer, and more likely to miss the actual records held by the business. It also bundles several asks without naming the internal systems or process labels people use day to day.
Better request
Please share the complaint-handling, speak-up, and remedy process records for [period], including how people can raise concerns, how we help put things right where we have caused or contributed to harm, how users help shape the process, and how we check whether it is working. Use your own process names and attach the latest policy, tracker, review notes, and any anonymised examples or feedback.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for complaint-handling and remedy process evidence for [reporting period] Dear [name/team], We are preparing the sustainability disclosure on how the organisation handles complaints, fixes harm, and checks whether those routes are working. Please could you share the material below for [reporting period] and the relevant scope: 1. The names and short descriptions of the internal routes used to receive and handle concerns or complaints. 2. Any routes we use or join to help put things right where we have caused or contributed to harm. 3. A summary of how the intended users of these routes are involved in designing, reviewing, operating, and improving them. 4. How we monitor whether these routes are effective, including any measures, dashboards, review notes, or case summaries. 5. Any examples of effectiveness, including feedback from users or other stakeholders. 6. Supporting documents or links, such as policy notes, process maps, committee papers, and anonymised case examples. Please use the organisation’s own terminology in your response, and include enough detail for us to map it to the disclosure. If anything is incomplete, please note the gap and the owner. This is a possible LRA training template only; please adapt it to your organisation and check the source disclosure before sign-off. Many thanks, [preparer name] [team] [contact details]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send over the complaint / case-handling and remedy process info for [period]? We need: - the routes we use to receive and handle concerns - any routes we use to help put things right - how users are involved in design/review/improvement - how we track whether the routes work - any examples or feedback showing effectiveness Please use your team’s own terms and attach any links/docs. This is a possible LRA training template only; please adapt it to your organisation and check the source disclosure before sign-off. Thanks, [name]
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant has a hotline, supervisor escalation route, and a corrective-action log for worker and contractor concerns.
Adapted request. Please send the site complaint and corrective-action records for [period], including the hotline route, supervisor escalation path, any process used to put things right after a site incident, how workers and contractors feed into reviews, and how we track closure and repeat issues.
Example response. Attached: site speak-up procedure, corrective-action dashboard, quarterly review minutes, and two anonymised case summaries showing closure time, repeat-issue checks, and worker feedback.
Retail / Consumer Services
Context. A customer care team manages complaints, refunds, service recovery, and a separate route for supplier or community concerns.
Adapted request. Please share the customer complaints, service recovery, and escalation process notes for [period], plus any route used to address harm we have caused or contributed to, how customers or other users help improve the process, and the measures we use to track resolution quality.
Example response. Attached: customer care playbook, service recovery log, monthly quality report, user survey summary, and examples of process changes made after recurring complaint themes.
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 the organisation counts as a complaint route, a remedy process, stakeholder involvement, and an effectiveness check, and state the reporting period and any inclusion rules used to compile the figures and examples.
Context note
Set out what the numbers show about how the organisation handles concerns, supports remedy where it is linked to harm, and learns from user feedback on whether the arrangements are working.
Fluctuation statement
If volumes, outcomes, or feedback changed materially, note the main operational or stakeholder-related reasons for the movement and whether any process changes affected the results.
Content index entry
GRI 2-25 Processes to remediate negative impacts — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 2-25. 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 data request goes to a policy lead or legal contact instead of the team that actually runs the complaints route, repair process, or local case handling.
- Using framework language only
People answer in GRI-style terms rather than the organisation’s own names for complaint lines, casework, repair actions, or escalation routes, so the source data cannot be traced back to real operations.
- Leaving the scope undefined
The team does not state which sites, business units, suppliers, or affected groups are included, so different contributors collect different populations and the final dataset is not comparable.
- Mixing the time basis
Inputs are pulled from different periods, such as calendar year, reporting year, or live system status, which makes the evidence set internally inconsistent.
- Combining unlike counts
Case numbers, users, complaints, and remedy actions are merged into one total even though they are measured on different bases and should stay separate.
- Dropping source labels
When extracts are copied into spreadsheets, the original system names, case IDs, channel labels, or document titles are lost, so the team cannot trace each figure back to its source.
- Blending separate user groups
Feedback from workers, community members, customers, or other intended users is pooled together even though the mechanism design and review evidence should be kept distinct.
- Missing evidence trail
The file set has no date stamp, owner, version history, or sign-off record, so no one can show who checked the data or when it was last confirmed.
Where judgement is often needed
- Acquired or sold businesses during the reporting period
Decide whether to include remediation routes that existed only for part of the year, and explain the cut-off used so readers can see which parts of the business are covered.
- Different local meanings for the same complaint type
Where countries use different labels or legal definitions for grievances, map them to one internal grouping and disclose the mapping rule so the approach is comparable across locations.
- People close to, but not fully inside, the reporting boundary
State how you treat contractors, agency staff, community members, or other affected groups that sit near the boundary, and explain why they are included or left out of the process description.
- Choosing the timing basis for process reporting
If the year-end position differs from the average or opening position, say which point in time you used for counts, status, or examples of use, and keep that basis consistent or explain the change.
- Measured figures versus management estimates
When exact counts are not available for complaints, cases closed, or feedback received, use a clearly labelled estimate, explain the method, and separate it from measured data where possible.
- Rounding and small-number suppression
If rounding changes totals or very small numbers could identify individuals, disclose the rounding rule or suppression approach and make sure the narrative still matches the figures shown.
- Aggregating feedback to protect privacy
When stakeholder comments are too sensitive to quote directly, summarise them in grouped form and explain the aggregation level so the reader understands how privacy shaped the evidence presented.
- One mechanism serving several affected groups
If the same channel is used by workers, communities, or other users, describe how each group can access it and how you track whether it works for each audience rather than only in total.
- Partial coverage of remediation routes
Where some sites, countries, or business lines have a formal route and others rely on a different process, spell out the coverage gap and the alternative route used for the uncovered areas.
- Changes in process design after feedback
If users helped reshape the channel during the year, note what changed, when it changed, and whether the effectiveness view is based on the old design, the new design, or both.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food processing · synthetic · written by LRA
This synthetic disclosure shows how a reporter can explain its remedy commitments, complaint handling routes, user involvement, monitoring approach and evidence of whether the process works in practice.
Synthetic example only. We use a single intake route for workers, contractors and nearby residents, and we review every case to decide whether we caused or helped cause the issue and what remedy we should provide or support. The people who use the route help shape it through quarterly reviews, and we also use separate follow-up channels for cases handled through supplier action plans and direct compensation.
- We logged 48 grievances this year; 45 were closed, and 41 of those were resolved within the target time.
- Effectiveness is tracked through closure time, repeat complaints and user feedback: 87% of closed cases were confirmed as satisfactorily handled by the person who raised them, and 12 users said the process was easier to use after we simplified the form and added a call-back option.
Construction services · synthetic · written by LRA
This synthetic disclosure shows a different reporter using plain language to cover remedy commitments, grievance routes, user participation in design and review, tracking methods and examples of effectiveness.
Synthetic example only. Where we find that our own work has caused or added to harm, we commit to help put it right through repair, compensation, apology or other agreed action, depending on the case. Site workers, subcontractors and community representatives help test the reporting channels twice a year, and their comments have led us to extend opening hours and add a phone line for people who prefer not to use the web form.
- During the period we recorded 26 issues; 24 were handled to completion, including 18 through the main reporting route and 6 through separate project-level mediation or claims processes.
- We judge performance by looking at time to close, whether the same issue returns, and direct user views; 20 of the 24 closed cases were accepted as resolved, and 9 users said the revised process was more accessible than before.
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
- Grievance routes and remedy channels — table: A side-by-side list of the complaint routes the organisation uses or joins, the types of issues each route covers, and the remedy or follow-up available through each one.
- How stakeholders shape the process — stacked bar: The ways intended users are involved in designing, reviewing, running, and improving complaint-handling arrangements, split by stage of involvement.
- Tracking whether the process works — bar: Measures used to monitor how well complaint-handling and remedy processes are performing, such as resolution progress, timeliness, or follow-up completion.
- Examples of effective resolution — table: Selected cases showing the issue raised, the response provided, the outcome reached, and any feedback from affected stakeholders on whether the process worked.
- Coverage of remediation commitments — donut: The balance between direct remedy commitments and participation in shared or external remedy processes for impacts the organisation says it has caused or helped cause.
- Issue flow through the grievance system — line: A period-by-period view of complaint volumes, resolution activity, and any notable shifts in use of the mechanisms or other remedy routes.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We have a process to help put right harms we have caused or helped cause.
Better
We use a complaints route and other repair processes, with affected people helping shape and improve them, and we track how well they work using case closure rates and user feedback.
Best
Across our sites and supply chain, we run complaints and other repair routes for harms we have caused or helped cause, review them quarterly with user input, and saw closure rates rise from 72% to 84% this year after simplifying intake and adding local-language support, which users said made access easier.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 2-25 — 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. 144 →p. 52 →p. 59 → | 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 provides a reported value related to due diligence on page 142, referencing an external due diligence document for further details (p.142). The report also mentions the company’s commitment to improving environmental conditions and managing impacts on biodiversity, with references to pages 87 and 147 and external annexes for more information (p.87, p.147). However, the report lacks clear or quotable evidence on the methodology or narrative for several narrative items, including parts (b), (c), and (d), which remain unclear or not found in the document.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Globalvia | Ground Transportation — Highways and Railtracks · Spain | 2025 | Partial | p. 109 →p. 77 →p. 117 → | Globalvia Sustainability Report 2025 → | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Globalvia’s reportWhat the report shows Globalvia's 2025 Sustainability Report provides coverage on corporate culture and business conduct policies, including ethics and compliance safeguard mechanisms, as detailed on page 107. The report also addresses prevention and detection of corruption and bribery, with mechanisms for seeking advice and raising concerns noted on the same page. Additionally, material impacts, risks, and opportunities are discussed in relation to the company's strategy and business model on pages 104 and 121. However, there is no clear or quotable evidence found regarding the methodology or narrative for some narrative items, indicating gaps in those areas.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Nan Pao Resins Chemical Co., Ltd. | Chemicals · Taiwan | 2024 | Partial | p. 74 →p. 92 →p. 20 → | NANPAO Sustainability Report 2024 → | Ernst & Young; BSI; EY; KPMG | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Nan Pao Resins Chemical Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows Nan Pao Resins Chemical Co., Ltd.’s 2024 sustainability report provides coverage on embedding policy commitments and processes to remediate negative impacts, with relevant information found on page 126. The report partially addresses grievance mechanisms, mentioning various meetings and forums on page 110, and offers some context on governance mechanisms and self-discipline on page 34. However, there is no clear or quotable evidence regarding certain narrative items, including one with no page reference, indicating some gaps in the 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
A manufacturer has found that one of its sites caused a spill that affected nearby land and a local watercourse. The team has a draft note saying the issue was fixed, but it does not yet explain what support the business will offer or whether it will work with others to put things right.What should the disclosure cover before sign-off so readers can see how the business will help remedy harm it caused or helped cause?
Model answer. It should set out, in plain terms, the commitments the business has made to put right harm it caused or helped cause, including where it will act directly and where it will work with others. The wording should be specific enough to show the route to remedy, not just say the issue was handled.
Why this matters. Explain the organisation’s practical promise to repair harm it caused or contributed to, not just that an incident was closed.
A services group has a whistleblowing line, a customer complaints inbox, and membership of an industry ombuds scheme. The draft report lists the channels but does not explain how people can use them or how the business handles the issues raised.What extra explanation is needed so the report shows how grievances are found and dealt with?
Model answer. The report should describe the way complaints and concerns are identified and handled, including the channels the organisation runs itself and any external scheme it uses. It should make clear how a concern moves from intake to response, rather than only naming the channels.
Why this matters. Name the routes for raising concerns and explain the handling process, not just the existence of a mailbox or scheme.
A retailer says it has a supplier hotline and a worker complaint route, but the draft report gives no detail on how workers or community representatives helped shape those channels. The sustainability team says the channels were designed by management and then launched.How should the report address the role of the people the channels are meant for?
Model answer. It should explain how the intended users were involved in shaping the channels, checking them, running them, and improving them over time. If that involvement was limited, the report should say so plainly and describe the actual level of participation.
Why this matters. Show how the people meant to use the process helped shape and improve it, not just that the process exists.
A construction business has a site grievance route and a separate mediation process for community complaints. It can show the number of cases closed, but it has not yet gathered any examples of whether people found the outcomes fair or useful.What should the preparer include to show whether these routes are working well?
Model answer. The disclosure should explain how the business checks whether the channels and other remedy routes are effective, and it should include examples of what that evidence shows. That can include feedback from users or other signs that the process is accessible, used, and leads to outcomes that address the issue.
Why this matters. Track whether the remedy routes work in practice, and support that with examples and feedback.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 2-25 — 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 ✓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 ✓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
GRI 2-25 disclosure: what data do I need to collect before I draft it?
Use the page’s datapoint list as your starting point: remedy commitments, grievance handling, other remedy routes, user involvement, effectiveness monitoring and effectiveness examples. The page also gives a step-by-step preparation flow, so you can turn those inputs into a draft and an evidence pack. ↑ section
How do I prepare a GRI 2-25 disclosure step by step?
Follow the page’s preparation section to move from understanding the disclosure, to gathering the listed datapoints, to shaping the narrative and supporting evidence. It is designed as a practical workflow rather than a formal standard text. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 2-25 data for remedy commitments and grievance handling?
The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who actually hold or manage the underlying process and evidence. Use the page to assign clear responsibility for each datapoint before drafting. ↑ section
What evidence pack do I need for GRI 2-25 assurance readiness?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to help you get assurance-ready. Use it alongside the four assurance claims to verify so you can link each claim to a clear risk and supporting evidence. ↑ section
What are the four assurance claims to check for GRI 2-25?
The page sets out four assurance claims to verify, each framed around a claim, the related risk, and the evidence needed. Use those claims to test whether your draft is supported and whether the evidence pack is complete. ↑ section
What are the common mistakes in reporting GRI 2-25?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes to help you spot weak points before sign-off. It is useful for checking whether you have covered the listed datapoints, used the workbook properly, and built enough evidence for review. ↑ section
How do I use the GRI 2-25 Prep & Assurance workbook?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format to help you organise the disclosure work. Use it to capture the required datapoints, track evidence, and prepare the draft in a structured way. ↑ section
What is in the printable GRI 2-25 Library Card PDF?
The Download Centre also includes a printable Library Card in PDF format. It is there as a quick reference alongside the main page, the workbook, and the preparation guidance. ↑ section
Can I use the GRI 2-25 example disclosure as a template for my own draft?
Yes, the page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table where relevant. Treat them as examples only and make sure your own draft stays internally consistent and matches your actual data. ↑ section
How do I turn GRI 2-25 data into a draft disclosure?
The page’s draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line to help you convert the collected data into a report-ready draft. Use those prompts after you have completed the preparation and evidence checks. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 2-25 remedy commitments: what should I collect before writing the disclosure?
- GRI 2-25 grievance handling: how do I set scope and ownership for the data?
- GRI 2-25 other remedy routes: what evidence should I keep for assurance?
- GRI 2-25 user involvement: how do I describe it in a draft without overclaiming?
- GRI 2-25 effectiveness monitoring: what counts as useful supporting evidence?
- GRI 2-25 effectiveness examples: how do I use the synthetic example without copying it?
- GRI 2-25 common reporting gaps: what mistakes should I check before sign-off?
- GRI 2-25 workbook download: how should I fill in the Prep & Assurance spreadsheet?
- GRI 2-25 evidence pack: what should be in the file set for review?
- GRI 2-25 draft output: what narrative starters does the page provide?
- GRI 2-25 content index line: how do I draft the index entry from the page?
- GRI 2-25 from company reports: how can I use the linked published reports for benchmarking?
✓ 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.
