GRI 303: Water and Effluents 2018 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 303-2
Management of water dischargerelated 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 ↓
6 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it manages the impacts linked to the water it releases back into the environment. In practice, the focus is on the controls, processes and oversight used to reduce harm from discharges, rather than on describing water use in general. The organisation should make clear what it does to identify, prevent, limit and respond to any adverse effects associated with its wastewater or other water releases.
The practical emphasis is on the parts of the business where discharges can create material impacts, and whether management is applied consistently across operations or only at selected sites. A useful explanation would show how the organisation decides which locations, activities or discharge points need attention, and how it monitors performance and follows up where risks are higher.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effluent quality floor | State the lowest quality level set for wastewater leaving the site, including the key measures or limits used to define it. | Discharge permit conditions, internal environmental standards, treatment plant operating criteria, or water quality target documents. | Environment / EHS |
| How limits were set | Explain the method used to decide the discharge quality floor, including the source of the criteria and any review or approval step. | Standard-setting memo, engineering basis note, permit application pack, or approval record from environment management. | Environment / EHS |
| No-local-rule sites | Describe how discharge standards were chosen for sites where no local wastewater rule applies, including the fallback basis used. | Corporate water standard, site compliance procedure, legal register, or location-by-location discharge assessment. | Environment / EHS |
| Company water rules | Describe any water quality rules or guidance created by the business itself and used for discharge control. | Internal policy, technical standard, environmental manual, or water quality guideline issued by the company. | Environment / EHS |
| Industry standards reviewed | Describe any industry or trade standards that were taken into account when setting or checking discharge quality expectations. | Sector code of practice, trade association guidance, technical benchmark note, or standards review log. | Environment / EHS |
| Receiving water context | Explain whether the condition of the water body receiving the discharge was taken into account when setting the standard. | Receiving water assessment, catchment study, hydrology report, or discharge impact assessment. | Environment / EHS |
Show GRI 303-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Set out any water-quality rules or guidance the organisation has created itself.
- Explain the baseline limits used for effluent released from operations.
- Note any industry-specific benchmarks that were taken into account.
- Describe how limits were chosen for sites where no local discharge rules apply.
- Explain how the effluent baseline limits were established.
- State whether the characteristics of the receiving water body were taken into account.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Start by listing every site or operation that sends treated water out of the business, then decide which of those locations the disclosure will cover. Keep the scope note clear so reviewers can see what is in and what is left out.
- For each covered location, define the quality benchmark you used for the discharge. Record whether it came from a local rule, an internal company rule, a sector benchmark, or another basis, and keep the wording specific to each site where it differs.
- If a site has no local discharge rule, explain the method used to set the benchmark there. Also note any company-made water quality guidance and any industry benchmark you relied on, using enough detail for someone else to follow the logic.
- Check whether the receiving water environment was part of the decision. If it was, capture what aspect of that waterbody profile you looked at and how it influenced the benchmark or the final description.
- Gather the supporting records before drafting the disclosure: policy papers, technical notes, site-level approvals, legal or compliance references, and any assessment papers showing how the benchmark was chosen. Make sure the evidence matches the wording you plan to report.
- Prepare the final text by setting out the benchmark description and the method used to determine it, then add any exclusions, site-specific differences, or changes from prior reporting. Before filing, compare the draft with the official source to confirm you have covered every required point and have not added anything extra.
Request the wastewater discharge standards evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What standards, methods, and site-level considerations are being used to manage wastewater discharge quality at our facilities?
Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the reporting wording. For example, ask for wastewater, trade effluent, process water, or site discharge records if those are the terms used internally. Keep the request in operational language and check the source material before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 303-2 evidence for effluent discharge standards and the methodology for determining standards, including internal guidelines, sector-specific standards, and receiving waterbody considerations.
Why it fails: It uses framework language that many operational teams will not use day to day, so it is harder to action. It also bundles several ideas into a compliance-style ask without telling the owner what records to pull, which sites or systems to check, or what format to return.
Better request
Please send the wastewater or trade effluent discharge standards pack for [period] and [sites]. Include the current limits or site rules, how they were set, what we do at sites with no local discharge limit, any internal water quality guidance, any sector guidance used, and whether the receiving waterbody or outfall was considered. Please add the source file, version, and approver.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for wastewater discharge standards evidence for [reporting period]\n\nHi [name/team],\n\nI’m pulling together the evidence pack for our reporting on how we manage wastewater discharge quality at [sites/business unit in scope]. Could you please share the documents and a short summary covering:\n\n- the discharge quality limits or site rules currently used\n- how those limits or rules were set\n- how we set the approach at sites where there is no local discharge limit\n- any internal water quality guidance or site standards we use\n- any sector guidance or external benchmarks we took into account\n- whether the receiving waterbody or outfall conditions were considered\n\nPlease include the period covered, the sites in scope, the source system or file location, and the person who approved the approach. If you have multiple versions, please send the latest approved version and note any site differences.\n\nA possible LRA training template only — please adapt this to your organisation’s own language and check the source material before sign-off.\n\nThanks,\n[preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send the wastewater/trade effluent discharge standards pack for [period] for [sites]? Please include the limits or site rules used, how they were set, any internal guidance, any external/sector benchmarks used, and whether the receiving waterbody/outfall was considered. Also share the source file and approver. Please adapt to your own terms and check the source material before sign-off. Thanks.
Industry examples
Food and beverage manufacturing
Context. Sites discharge process water and cleaning water to sewer under local permits and site operating rules.
Adapted request. Please share the trade effluent and process water discharge pack for [period] across [sites]. Include the current site limits, how they were set, any internal hygiene or water quality rules, any industry guidance used, and whether the sewer or receiving water conditions were considered.
Example response. For Plant A and Plant B, the pack includes the permit extracts, the site discharge procedure, a technical note explaining how limits were set from permit conditions and internal engineering checks, and a memo confirming that sewer capacity and local receiving conditions were reviewed. Plant C has no local discharge limit, so the site used the corporate water quality guide and a benchmark from the sector association.
Mining / extractives
Context. Sites manage mine water and treated discharge to a nearby watercourse, with some remote locations lacking local discharge thresholds.
Adapted request. Please provide the mine water discharge standards pack for [period] for [sites]. Include the discharge limits or site operating rules, how they were determined, the approach used at remote sites with no local limit, any internal water quality guidance, any sector benchmark, and whether the river or catchment conditions were considered.
Example response. The response includes site discharge plans, lab-based limit summaries, a technical memo for remote sites showing how the benchmark was set using internal guidance and regional practice, and a note confirming that river flow and catchment sensitivity were reviewed before finalising the site rules.
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 which discharge-quality benchmarks were used, how each one was chosen, and how you dealt with sites that had no local discharge rules, including any company-made guidance, outside sector benchmarks and any assessment of the receiving water.
Context note
Set out what the figures mean by showing the standards used to manage effluent quality and how they differ by site, so readers can see whether the approach was locally driven or based on broader internal or sector practice.
Fluctuation statement
If the standards changed from one site or period to another, note whether that was because local rules differed, a different benchmark was selected, or the receiving water conditions led to a different approach.
Content index entry
GRI 303-2 Management of water dischargerelated impacts — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 303-2. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We set out the minimum water-quality thresholds we used for the discharge figure, and we kept the basis for those thresholds on file. | The thresholds may be vague, incomplete, or not actually applied to the reported figure. | Internal standard or procedure, approval records, and the working papers showing the thresholds used in preparing the figure. |
| We can show how those thresholds were chosen, including the reasoning and any approvals behind the decision. | The selection process may be undocumented or appear arbitrary. | Decision papers, meeting notes, sign-off records, and any supporting analysis used to justify the chosen thresholds. |
| Where a site had no local discharge rule to follow, we used our own documented approach for that location and kept the rationale. | The site-specific approach may not be consistent, or may have been invented after the fact. | Site-level methodology notes, internal guidance, location-by-location assessments, and evidence of management approval. |
| If we used an internal water-quality guide, we can produce the version in force and show how it was applied in the reporting period. | The internal guide may be outdated, inconsistently applied, or not linked to the disclosed figure. | Controlled copies of the internal guide, version history, implementation records, and samples showing use in the reported data. |
| Where we referred to industry practice, we kept evidence of which external benchmark we looked at and how it influenced our approach. | The external benchmark may be mischaracterised, selectively used, or not relevant to the disclosed figure. | Copies or references to the external benchmark, comparison notes, and records showing how it informed the final approach. |
| We considered the receiving water environment before finalising the figure, and we retained the assessment used in that review. | The local water context may have been ignored or only considered informally. | Environmental assessment, site discharge review, hydrology or receiving-water notes, and pre-publication review evidence. |
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 site team or lab when the actual evidence sits with the permit lead, environmental manager, or whoever set the discharge limits.
- Framework language only
People ask for answers in disclosure terms instead of the organisation’s own operational labels, so the source team cannot map the data back to their records.
- Scope left vague
The team collects a broad water file without first fixing which facilities, outlets, or discharge points are in scope, so the set is incomplete or overbroad.
- Wrong time basis
Data are pulled from a different reporting window or a mix of dates, which means the evidence does not line up with the period being reported.
- Mixed counting basis
One pack combines site-level, outlet-level, and company-level information without separating them, so the same discharge control can be counted more than once or missed.
- Source labels stripped
Original file names, register IDs, permit references, or lab sample tags are removed during consolidation, making it hard to trace each figure or statement back to its source.
- Separate groups merged
Facilities with different local rules, internal limits, or no local discharge rules are rolled into one list even though they need to be checked and explained separately.
- No evidence trail
The collector saves the final spreadsheet but not the supporting notes, version history, or sign-off record, so no one can show how the data were checked before use.
Where judgement is often needed
- When sites join or leave the group mid-year
Set a clear cut-off for newly acquired or sold facilities, explain whether their discharge controls are included from the transaction date or another point, and keep the same approach across the reporting period unless you explain a change.
- Where local discharge rules differ from site to site
If country or municipal limits are not comparable, describe the rule used to choose the site-level benchmark and say how you handled places with no local limit at all.
- Using company-set water quality limits
If you rely on an internal benchmark rather than an external one, explain who set it, what it is based on, and how it sits alongside any local or sector guidance you also considered.
- Bringing in sector guidance without treating it as the only test
State which industry guidance informed the site controls, and make clear whether it was used as a reference point, a gap-filler, or a stricter overlay on local expectations.
- Deciding how far to look at the receiving water
Explain whether you assessed the river, lake, estuary, or other water body that takes the discharge, and if you did not use that context, say why it was not part of the site review.
- Choosing between measured results and estimates
Where direct test results are missing or partial, disclose which figures are measured and which are estimated, the basis for any estimate, and any material assumptions used to fill gaps.
- Handling facilities near the edge of the reporting scope
If a site is partly controlled, shared, or operationally borderline, state the rule used to decide inclusion and note any exclusions so readers can see how the boundary was drawn.
- Aggregating sensitive site information
When site-level detail could reveal commercially sensitive or personal information, present the data at a higher level, explain the aggregation method, and keep the narrative consistent with the underlying evidence.
- Rounding and presentation of small differences
Say how figures were rounded, keep the method consistent across sites and periods, and note when small changes are due to presentation rather than a real shift in discharge management.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food processing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows how a reporter can explain the basis for effluent controls, including internal rules, sector guidance and the condition of the receiving water, without using standard language.
Synthetic illustration only. We set our discharge controls by starting with the legal limits that apply to each site, then tightening them where our own water team judged the local river or estuary to be more sensitive. For sites with no local rulebook, we used the same internal water-quality guide across the group, with extra checks where the receiving water was already under pressure.
- Our minimum release conditions covered pH, temperature, suspended solids, nutrients and selected process chemicals; the exact thresholds varied by site and were approved through our environmental management process.
- In 6 of 8 sites, the local permit was the main basis for the limit set; in the other 2 sites, we applied our internal guide because no local discharge limit existed.
- We also looked at the waterbody taking the effluent: 5 sites discharged to rivers with low seasonal flow, 2 to estuarine waters and 1 to a municipal treatment system, and that profile influenced how strict we made the site controls.
- Sector guidance for food and drink manufacturing was reviewed alongside the permit conditions, but we did not adopt any sector benchmark without checking it against site-specific conditions.
Chemicals · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows a different way to describe the same disclosure, with emphasis on how internal criteria were developed and how the receiving water influenced the final limits.
Synthetic illustration only. Our discharge criteria were built from the permit conditions that apply at each plant, then aligned with a group-wide water standard that we wrote for operations in places without a local discharge framework. Where we had no local limit to follow, we used that internal standard and checked it against the nature of the water receiving the outflow.
- The internal standard set minimum values for acidity, oil and grease, metals, and oxygen-demanding substances; it was created by our environmental specialists using past monitoring results, treatment capability and risk review.
- We considered chemical-industry guidance on wastewater quality, but only as a reference point; it did not replace site controls or the group standard.
- Of our 10 plants, 7 relied mainly on local permit conditions and 3 used the group standard because no local discharge requirement was in place.
- The receiving waters were part of the decision: 4 plants discharged to small inland streams, 3 to larger rivers and 3 to a coastal outfall, and we applied tighter internal checks where dilution was lower or ecological sensitivity was higher.
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 discharge quality thresholds were set — table: A side-by-side summary of each water-quality threshold used, with the source or basis for setting it and whether it was created internally or taken from another benchmark.
- Standards used where local rules were absent — bar: A comparison of sites or facilities that had no local discharge rules, showing which alternative benchmark was applied at each location.
- Internal guidance versus external benchmarks — stacked bar: The mix of discharge-quality benchmarks used across the reporting boundary, split between company-made guidance and outside standards considered.
- Factors used to judge the receiving water — table: Which characteristics of the receiving water were taken into account when setting discharge expectations, and where that information was applied.
- Where alternative discharge benchmarks were applied — map: The locations of facilities without local discharge rules, with the benchmark chosen for each place.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
I set our discharge limits at a level that reflects local rules and our own water-quality guidance.
Better
I set our discharge limits using local permit conditions where they exist, our internal water-quality criteria where they do not, and sector guidance, and I also checked the receiving water’s condition.
Best
For this year, I applied site-by-site discharge limits based on local permit terms or, where none existed, our internal water-quality criteria and sector guidance, and I took account of the receiving water’s condition; compared with last year, one site tightened its limit after a routine review showed the river was more sensitive than we had first assumed.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 303-2 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Yum China Holdings, Inc. | Hotels, Restaurants, Leisure, Tourism Services · China | 2025 | Exact | p. 50 →p. 51 →p. 45 → | Yum China 2025 Sustainability Report → | EY | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Yum China Holdings, Inc.’s reportWhat the report shows Yum China Holdings, Inc.’s 2025 Sustainability Report provides a description of emissions targets and the steps taken to achieve them, detailed on pages 45 and 46-51. The report also includes data on water discharge management and water withdrawal, referencing GRI 303 disclosures on page 51 and related information on page 53. However, there is no quotable evidence found for several narrative items (a-i, a-iii, a-iv), and the methodology or narrative for some disclosures remains 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Marfrig Global Foods S.A. | Food Production — Animal Source · Brazil | 2024 | Partial | p. 45 →p. 78 →p. 79 → | Integrated Report 2024 → | EY | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Marfrig Global Foods S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Marfrig Global Foods S.A.'s Integrated Report 2024 includes a covered datapoint on effluent management, stating that standards are met and that there is an online monitoring system for effluent (p.83). However, other narrative items related to this disclosure are not found or unclear, with no quotable evidence provided elsewhere in the report. This suggests limited detailed information on the broader aspects of the disclosure beyond the effluent monitoring system.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Aguas Andinas S.A. | Water Utilities · Chile | 2025 | Partial | p. 195 →p. 196 →p. 259 → | Aguas Andinas 2025 Integrated Report → | bsi | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Aguas Andinas S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Aguas Andinas S.A.'s 2025 Integrated Report covers several aspects related to service quality and environmental standards, including compliance with the Chilean Standard (NCh) 409 for service quality (p.118) and minimum quality standards for treated effluent discharge (p.284). The report also details relevant characteristics of main properties and concession areas, indicating ownership status (p.275), and references international sustainability reporting standards (p.83). However, there is no evidence found regarding certain narrative items (a-iii) and (a-iv), which remain unaddressed 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
A manufacturing site sends treated wastewater to a river where the local permit only covers a few pollutants. The team has also set extra internal limits for temperature and suspended solids because the river is already under pressure.What should the preparer decide to include when explaining how the discharge limits were set?
Model answer. They should describe the minimum quality limits used for the outflow, explain the basis for setting those limits, and make clear whether they came from local rules, internal guidance, sector practice, or a mix of these. If the river’s condition influenced the choice, that should also be stated.
Why this matters. The explanation should show both the limit itself and the reasoning behind how it was chosen.
A site in a country with no local wastewater discharge rules uses a group-wide standard that was written by the company’s environmental team. The standard was based on a review of similar operations and a benchmark from the sector.How should the preparer explain the basis for the site’s discharge standard?
Model answer. They should say that, because no local discharge rule applied, the site used an internally set benchmark. The explanation should describe how that benchmark was developed and note any sector practice that informed it.
Why this matters. Where local rules are absent, the report should still explain the source and logic of the site’s own benchmark.
A food-processing plant discharges into a small lake used for recreation and wildlife. The environmental team checked the lake’s sensitivity, seasonal flow, and existing nutrient levels before finalising the discharge limits.What judgement should the preparer make about the receiving waterbody information?
Model answer. They should include a clear statement on whether the lake’s characteristics were taken into account when setting the discharge limits. If they were, the report should briefly describe the features considered and how they affected the standard.
Why this matters. The report should show whether the receiving water’s condition shaped the discharge approach.
A group has three facilities: one follows a municipal permit, one uses a company-made water quality guideline, and one in a specialist industry also aligns with a sector benchmark. The draft report lists the limits but not where each one came from.What should the preparer do before sign-off?
Model answer. They should add a plain-language explanation for each facility or site type showing the basis for the discharge limits, including any internal guideline, sector benchmark, or local requirement used. The narrative should also explain how the limits were determined and whether the receiving water was considered where relevant.
Why this matters. A complete disclosure links each discharge limit to its source and the reasoning behind it.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 303-2 — drawn from their own published reports, with the exact pages, and an LRA AI-assistant that works through it with you. Available to LRA Community members and to students throughout their platform access.
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
→
ESRSRelated
ESRS E3
Water and Marine Resources — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
What do I need to gather for GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents before I start drafting the disclosure?
Use the page’s prep list as your starting point: effluent quality floor, how limits were set, any sites with no local rule, company water rules, industry standards reviewed, and the receiving water context. The page also has a step-by-step preparation section to help you turn that into a draft. ↑ section
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents?
Work through the steps to move from source data and methodology into a disclosure draft. The page is designed as practitioner guidance, so it helps you organise the information rather than just list the topic. ↑ section
What data owner should I ask for the GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents inputs?
The page does not assign a specific role, but it is written for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers to use together. In practice, you would route the prep items and evidence pack to whoever holds the water and effluent data and the supporting methodology. ↑ section
How do I decide the scope and methodology for GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents using this page?
Use the page’s methodology prompts: how limits were set, any company water rules, industry standards reviewed, and the receiving water context. Those items help you explain the basis for the disclosure in a way that is ready for review. ↑ section
What should go into the evidence pack for GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents?
The page includes a five-item evidence pack for assurance readiness. Use it to assemble the documents and records that support the claims, the methodology, and the reported figures before you finalise the disclosure. ↑ section
What are the six assurance claims I need to verify for GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents?
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk, and evidence prompt. Use those checks to test whether the draft is supported and whether the evidence pack is complete. ↑ section
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes for GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can spot weak points before sign-off. It is useful for checking whether the draft has enough context, evidence, and consistent methodology. ↑ section
Can I use the synthetic example on the GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents page as a template for my own disclosure?
Yes, as a drafting aid only. The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures and a quantitative table, so you can see how the information might be presented, but you should replace it with your own data and context. ↑ section
What should the draft output for GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents look like?
The page gives draft-output ideas including visualisation options, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That helps you turn the underlying data into a disclosure-ready draft rather than a raw data dump. ↑ section
How do I use the workbook and printable PDF from the GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents download centre?
The download centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise the prep and assurance checks, and the PDF as a reference copy for review or sharing. ↑ section
Is the data I prepare for GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents reusable for ESRS E3 (Water and Marine Resources)?
The page says ESRS E3 is the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across both. It does not say the requirements are identical, so you still need to check the other framework separately. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents prep checklist for sustainability manager
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents evidence pack checklist for assurance
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents how to set methodology and limits
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents common mistakes to avoid
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents workbook download xlsx
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents printable library card pdf
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents synthetic example disclosure
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents narrative starter for draft report
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents content index line example
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents receiving water context what to include
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents company water rules and industry standards reviewed
- GRI 303-2 Water and Effluents ESRS E3 data reuse
✓ 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.
