GRI 2: General Disclosures · Universal Standard
Disclosure GRI 2-2
Entities included in the organization’s sustainability reporting
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
6 datapoints ↓
4 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to be clear about which entities, businesses, subsidiaries, joint arrangements or other parts of the group are included in its sustainability report. In practice, the report should make it obvious whether the information covers the whole organisation, only certain legal entities, or a defined subset of operations. The aim is to avoid any ambiguity about the reporting boundary so readers can understand what the reported data and statements do, and do not, cover.
The practical focus is on coverage and consistency: explain the scope used for the report and make sure it matches the way the organisation has chosen to present its sustainability performance. If some parts of the group are left out, or if the report only covers selected sites, regions or entities, that should be stated clearly so users do not assume the figures represent the entire organisation.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reporting entity list | The full set of entities brought into the sustainability report, named clearly and consistently with the reporting boundary used for the period. | Group reporting boundary paper, legal entity register, consolidation schedule, reporting pack. | Group reporting / Finance |
| Boundary differences note | Where the published financial perimeter is not the same as the sustainability-reporting perimeter, set out exactly which entities differ and why. | Published financial statements, sustainability boundary memo, legal entity mapping, board-approved reporting scope note. | Group reporting / Finance |
| Minority interest treatment | For a group with more than one entity, describe how reported figures are combined, including any changes made for holdings that are not fully owned. | Consolidation policy, group reporting instructions, consolidation workbook, ownership schedule. | Group reporting / Finance |
| Transaction boundary changes | For a group with more than one entity, explain how the reporting set is updated when businesses are bought, sold, merged, or partly disposed of. | M&A close files, disposal papers, consolidation entries, period-on-period boundary change log. | Group reporting / Finance |
| Disclosure-specific method | If different parts of this standard use different consolidation methods, state where the method changes and which disclosures or topics use each approach. | Disclosure mapping, reporting methodology note, topic-level consolidation instructions, internal reporting manual. | Sustainability reporting / Group reporting |
| Topic-level consolidation method | Explain how the consolidation approach varies by material topic and by disclosure, including the practical rule used for each case. | Topic methodology papers, disclosure-by-disclosure mapping, reporting controls matrix, data owner instructions. | Sustainability reporting / Group reporting |
Show GRI 2-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Describe the method used to combine data across group entities, and note any differences in that method between disclosures in this Standard and between material topics.
- If the group has changed through mergers, acquisitions, or disposals of entities or parts of entities, explain how those changes are reflected in the consolidation method.
- State whether the consolidation method varies between disclosures in this Standard and between material topics.
- Say whether any minority-interest adjustments are made when combining the information.
- Where audited group accounts or other public financial filings exist, set out how the entities covered by financial reporting differ from those covered by sustainability reporting.
- Provide a complete list of every entity included in sustainability reporting.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: make a complete register of every entity that sits inside the sustainability report, so the reader can see exactly which parts of the group are covered.
- Check whether you also have audited group accounts or other public financial filings, then compare the two entity lists and note any differences between the finance perimeter and the sustainability perimeter.
- If the organisation has more than one entity, write down the method used to combine the information, including whether you adjust for minority holdings when you roll the data up.
- In the same consolidation note, explain how you deal with changes in the group structure during the period, such as mergers, acquisitions, and disposals of entities or parts of entities.
- State whether the consolidation method is the same for every disclosure in this standard and for every material topic, or whether you use different treatments in some areas; if it differs, describe where and how.
- Before finalising, cross-check the disclosure against the official source to confirm the entity list, the comparison with financial reporting, and the consolidation explanation are all complete and consistent.
Request the group entity scope and consolidation notes
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which entities are in scope for the sustainability report, and how does that scope compare with the group reporting perimeter and consolidation approach?
Use your organisation’s own perimeter, consolidation and entity-list terms first, then map them to the sustainability report wording. If your team talks about the group structure, reporting perimeter, legal entities, or consolidation pack, use those terms in the request and in the response.
Weak request
Please provide the entities included in sustainability reporting and explain the consolidation approach.
Why it fails: This uses framework-style language only and does not tell the owner what practical records to pull. It is too vague on the source list, the comparison point, the period, and the change events that affect the answer.
Better request
Please send the current group entity list used for the sustainability pack for [period], plus the matching list used for the group accounts or filed statements, and note any differences, ownership adjustments, acquisitions, disposals, mergers, or topic-specific scope exceptions.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for entity scope and consolidation notes for sustainability reporting Hi [Name], We are preparing the sustainability report and need the current entity scope information from your team. Please send: - the list of entities included in the reporting perimeter for [period] - any differences between that list and the entities used in the group financial reporting / filed accounts, if applicable - a short note on how the reporting perimeter is built for the sustainability pack, including any treatment of minority interests - how mergers, acquisitions, disposals, or other structure changes during the period were handled - whether the scope or method changes across different report sections or topic areas Please return this in your usual format if easier, or use the table below. [deadline] [contact for questions] Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [Name] — could you share the current entity list for the sustainability report for [period], plus any differences vs the group accounts list and a short note on how you handle consolidation, minority interests, and any acquisitions/disposals? A table or your usual pack is fine. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A multi-site group with several operating subsidiaries and one recently acquired plant.
Adapted request. Please share the entity list used for the sustainability pack for [period], the group accounts entity list, and a short note on how the acquired plant was brought into scope, whether any sold entities were removed, and whether minority holdings were adjusted in the pack.
Example response. Attached is the entity register for [period]. The sustainability pack includes 14 legal entities. The group accounts list includes the same 14 entities plus one dormant holding company excluded from the sustainability pack. The acquired plant was included from completion date; the sold warehouse entity was removed from the disposal date. No minority interest adjustment was applied in the sustainability pack.
Retail
Context. A retailer with a parent company, trading subsidiaries, and a small joint venture.
Adapted request. Please provide the trading entity list used for the sustainability report for [period], the filed accounts list, and a note on any differences, including the joint venture, any store closures, and whether the reporting pack treats partial ownership differently.
Example response. The sustainability report covers 9 trading subsidiaries and the parent company. The filed accounts list also includes the joint venture, which is excluded from the sustainability pack because it is not part of the operational reporting perimeter. Two closed store entities were removed during the year. Partial ownership is not separately adjusted in the sustainability pack; the reporting follows the same control basis as the group reporting pack.
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 entities are included in the sustainability reporting boundary, how that boundary was built from the group structure, and whether the same approach was used for all disclosures and material topics.
Context note
Clarify what the reported figures represent by linking them to the entities covered, noting any differences from the financial reporting population and any adjustments needed to combine data across the group.
Fluctuation statement
If the reporting population changed, describe whether the movement was driven by acquisitions, disposals or other structural changes, and explain how any change in scope affects comparability with earlier periods.
Content index entry
GRI 2-2 Entities included in the organization’s sustainability reporting — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 2-2. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| The information reported for this disclosure reconciles to the underlying source records. | What is reported cannot be traced back to the systems or documents it was drawn from, or does not tie out to them. | calculation_workbook reconciling the reported value to source_system_export |
| The information reported for this disclosure is current as at the reporting date. | The disclosure reflects a different period, a cut-off before the reporting date, or stale data carried over from a prior period. | approval_record showing the data cut-off date and the period covered |
| The scope behind the information reported for this disclosure is applied consistently. | Parts of the organisation are silently in or out of scope, or the scope differs from the prior period without that change being explained. | methodology defining the scope and a site_register of what it covers |
| Everything in scope is included in the information reported for this disclosure — nothing material is left out. | Parts of the population that should be reported are omitted, understating or overstating the disclosure. | site_register of the full population vs the calculation_workbook of what was actually included |
Evidence pack to prepare
- The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
- A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
- Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
- The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
- Minutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation
Common reporting gaps
- The information is presented without a date or as-at point.
- The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.
- Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.
- Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
- Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.
- Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong owner
The team asks the reporting lead instead of the business unit that actually keeps the entity register, so the source list comes from the wrong place.
- Framework language only
People ask for the answer in reporting-framework terms rather than the organisation’s own entity names, which makes the source data hard to map back to operations.
- Scope left vague
No one fixes which legal entities, branches, or other parts are in scope before collection starts, so different teams build different lists.
- Wrong period basis
The list is pulled using a different cut-off date from the one used for the reporting period, so the entity set does not match the rest of the data pack.
- Mixed counting basis
Headcount, revenue, and entity coverage are gathered on different bases and then merged without a clear bridge, which makes the population inconsistent.
- Source labels lost
The original file names, system codes, or register labels are stripped out during consolidation, so nobody can trace each entity back to its source record.
- Populations merged too early
Entities that should stay separate for finance and sustainability are combined into one working list before the differences are checked.
- Missing evidence trail
The collector saves the numbers but not the supporting metadata, such as source date, owner, and version, so the evidence cannot be reconstructed later.
- No sign-off record
The final entity list is circulated informally without a named reviewer or approval trail, so there is no clear record of who checked it.
Where judgement is often needed
- Set the cut-off date for bought-in and sold-on businesses
Choose a clear point in time for adding newly acquired operations and removing disposed ones, then explain that timing so readers can see why the entity list changed.
- Explain any gap between the finance perimeter and the sustainability perimeter
If the public finance set and the sustainability set are not the same, spell out which entities sit in one list but not the other and why.
- Decide how to handle partial ownership and outside interests
Where the group includes entities with other owners, state whether and how you adjust the figures for those outside shares and keep that approach consistent or explain the change.
- Resolve country-by-country naming and legal-entity differences
When local reporting units are defined differently across jurisdictions, use a single internal rule for inclusion and describe any exceptions so the scope is understandable.
- Draw the line for branches, joint operations and small units near the boundary
For operations that sit close to the inclusion threshold or are run through shared arrangements, explain the rule used to include or exclude them and why that line was chosen.
- State when estimates are used instead of direct counts
If some parts of the entity list rely on estimates, proxies or management judgement rather than direct records, identify those parts and explain the basis used.
- Keep the reporting basis consistent across topics, or flag where it changes
If different topics use different entity sets or consolidation methods, describe the differences plainly and link them to the relevant topic so users can compare like with like.
- Show how rounding and aggregation protect confidentiality without hiding scope
Where numbers are combined or rounded to avoid revealing sensitive detail, say so and make sure the total still matches the included entities at a high level.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Consumer goods manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
Illustrative only: shows how to name the reporting perimeter, explain any gap versus the financial perimeter, and describe consolidation choices for ownership, deal activity, and topic-specific boundaries.
Synthetic illustration only. We include six entities in our sustainability reporting: the parent company, three wholly owned operating subsidiaries, one joint venture accounted for on a proportionate basis for this report, and one dormant holding entity. Our published financial statements cover five entities; the only difference is the joint venture, which is outside the financial reporting perimeter, while one finance-only special purpose vehicle is excluded from sustainability reporting because it has no operational activity.
- For group-level figures, we combine the included entities on a line-by-line basis and remove intra-group balances and transactions; where we do not fully own an entity, we adjust the reported figures to reflect our share and the interests of other owners.
- We update the perimeter for acquisitions and disposals from the date control starts or ends, so the reporting set reflects entities added during the year and those sold or closed before period end.
- The same consolidation approach is used across the disclosures in this standard, but for material topics we apply topic-specific boundaries where an issue sits outside the reporting perimeter of a particular entity, such as a leased site or a jointly controlled operation.
Infrastructure services · synthetic · written by LRA
Illustrative only: shows a second plausible perimeter with a different mix of entities, a different gap to the financial reporting set, and a different way of explaining topic-level boundary choices.
Synthetic illustration only. Our sustainability reporting covers eight entities: the parent company, four operating subsidiaries, two project companies, and one service entity. Our audited financial statements include seven of those entities; the difference is one project company that is consolidated for sustainability reporting because it carries the main environmental and workforce impacts of the project, but is not included in the statutory accounts perimeter.
- We bring the included entities together using full consolidation for controlled businesses and a share-based approach for jointly controlled arrangements; minority holdings are reflected through adjustments so the group totals do not overstate our share.
- When businesses are bought or sold, we include them from the date we gain control and stop including them from the date control ends, so the reporting set changes in step with mergers, acquisitions, and disposals.
- We use one consolidation method for the disclosures in this standard, but for some material topics we widen the boundary to capture significant impacts in entities we do not fully control, such as major contractors on our project sites.
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
- Group entities included in the sustainability report — table: A simple list of every entity covered by the sustainability reporting boundary, so readers can see which companies or units are in scope.
- Sustainability reporting vs financial reporting scope — bar: A side-by-side comparison of entities included in the sustainability report and those included in the published financial statements, highlighting any differences.
- How the group was brought together for reporting — stacked bar: The consolidation approach used across the group, including any treatment of minority holdings and other adjustments made when combining entity data.
- Changes in the reporting population over time — line: The effect of mergers, acquisitions and disposals on the set of entities covered, showing how the reporting boundary has changed across periods.
- Where reporting methods differ by disclosure area — table: Any differences in consolidation or calculation approach between individual disclosures in the standard and between material topics.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
I include 12 entities in my sustainability report.
Better
I include 12 entities in my sustainability report, and 10 of them also sit in my financial reporting while 2 are report-only because they are managed differently for this purpose.
Best
I include 12 entities in my sustainability report for the year ended 31 December 2025; 10 also appear in my financial reporting and 2 do not, because one was acquired mid-year and one was sold before year-end, and I adjust for minority holdings where needed with the same consolidation approach used across all material topics and disclosures.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 2-2 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Globalvia | Ground Transportation — Highways and Railtracks · Spain | 2025 | Partial | p. 11 →p. 95 →p. 31 → | Globalvia Sustainability Report 2025 → | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Globalvia’s reportWhat the report shows Globalvia’s 2025 Sustainability Report provides coverage on the entities included in its sustainability reporting (p.112) and discusses relationships beyond the scope of financial consolidation (p.18). It also addresses its approach to stakeholder engagement, including labour relations and community engagement processes (p.114), and details material impacts, risks, and opportunities related to its strategy (p.104). However, the report lacks clear information on the methodology or narrative for certain stakeholder engagement aspects (c-ii) and some narrative items remain unspecified or 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Re Sustainability Limited | Solid Waste Management Utilities · India | 2025 | Partial | p. 343 →p. 93 →p. 154 → | Re Sustainability Integrated Annual Report FY 2024-25 → | ey | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Re Sustainability Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Re Sustainability Limited’s 2025 Integrated Annual Report provides a covered datapoint on internal financial controls under a specific legal clause, as noted on page 237. There is partial coverage related to consolidated financial statements and the auditor’s report on page 232, though no headline value is given. Several narrative items, including methodology or detailed narrative explanations, remain unclear or missing, with no quotable evidence found for these aspects.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited | Retailing · India | 2025 | Partial | p. 5 →p. 102 →p. 84 → | Integrated Annual Report 2024-25 → | Bureau Veritas | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited’s Integrated Annual Report 2024-25 provides coverage on the entities included in its sustainability reporting and the reporting scope and boundary on page 104, as well as references to sustainability reporting within the financial statements on page 249. The report also addresses management of material topics related to local communities on page 108. However, there is no clear evidence found regarding the methodology or narrative for certain narrative items (c-i and c-ii), indicating some gaps in detailed disclosure for those aspects.
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 group has a parent company, two wholly owned subsidiaries, and one joint venture that is not fully controlled. The finance team’s year-end pack includes all four entities, but the sustainability team has only drafted content for the parent and the two subsidiaries.Should the reporting pack name every entity covered by the sustainability report, and if the sustainability scope differs from the finance scope, what extra explanation is needed?
Model answer. Yes. The report should set out the full set of entities covered by the sustainability information. If the sustainability boundary is not the same as the financial reporting boundary, the preparer should also explain the gap between the two lists in plain terms.
Why this matters. Readers need to see which parts of the group sit inside the sustainability boundary, and any mismatch with the finance boundary should be made clear.
A group bought a business in October and sold another in March. The sustainability data team has used the full-year figures from the acquired business but has left out the sold business entirely because it was not owned at year end.How should the consolidation approach deal with the purchase and sale so the reporting boundary is understandable?
Model answer. The explanation should describe how changes in the group during the year are handled when combining the information. That means the preparer should say how newly acquired parts and disposed parts are treated, rather than leaving the reader to guess from the numbers alone.
Why this matters. The consolidation method should show how changes in ownership during the period are reflected in the reported information.
A group has a 70% owned operating company and a 30% owned associate. The sustainability team has included 100% of the operating company’s emissions and 30% of the associate’s, but no one has written down whether the minority share was adjusted in the process.What should the preparer explain about the way the figures were combined?
Model answer. The report should explain the method used to combine the data and say whether any figures were adjusted for minority holdings. If the approach changes the numbers because of partial ownership, that should be stated plainly so the reader understands how the totals were built.
Why this matters. Where ownership is shared, the report should make clear whether and how minority interests affect the combined figures.
A group reports on climate, workforce, and community topics. For climate, it uses one consolidation method across all entities; for workforce data, it uses a different method because one acquired business has incomplete legacy records; and for community spend, it uses a third approach for a joint operation.What level of explanation is needed when the consolidation method is not the same for every topic or every disclosure?
Model answer. The preparer should explain where the method is different across the report and where it varies by topic. In practice, that means describing the different treatment used for particular disclosures or material subjects, so the reader can see why the figures are not all built in the same way.
Why this matters. If the consolidation approach is not uniform, the differences should be described clearly and linked to the relevant disclosures or topics.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 2-2 — 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.
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 ✓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 2-2, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?
The page says to prepare a reporting entity list, a note on boundary differences, minority interest treatment, transaction boundary changes, the disclosure-specific method, and the topic-level consolidation method. Use that as your starting checklist before you draft anything. ↑ section
How do I use the step-by-step preparation section for GRI 2-2 in practice?
Use it as a working sequence to move from scoping and ownership through to evidence and draft output. The page is designed to help you prepare the disclosure, not just describe it. ↑ section
What should I include in the reporting entity list for GRI 2-2?
The page flags a reporting entity list as a required datapoint to prepare, so you should compile the entities in scope for the disclosure and keep that list consistent with the rest of your boundary notes. The page does not add any extra rules beyond that. ↑ section
How should I document boundary differences for GRI 2-2?
The page tells you to prepare a boundary differences note, so you should record where the disclosure boundary differs from other reporting boundaries and keep that explanation available for review. It is meant to support clarity and assurance readiness. ↑ section
What does the page mean by minority interest treatment for GRI 2-2, and how do I capture it?
The page lists minority interest treatment as a datapoint to prepare, so you should document how minority interests are handled in the disclosure and keep that treatment consistent in your working papers. The page does not define the treatment for you. ↑ section
How do I record transaction boundary changes for GRI 2-2?
The page says to prepare transaction boundary changes, so you should note any changes that affect the boundary used for the disclosure and keep a clear record of what changed and when. That helps with traceability and later assurance checks. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 2-2 disclosure process in my team?
The page is set up for practitioners to assign ownership as part of preparation, so the practical approach is to name the data owner, the drafter, and the reviewer early. The page does not prescribe a specific role structure. ↑ section
What evidence pack do I need to make GRI 2-2 assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, so you should assemble those materials alongside the disclosure draft and keep them easy to trace. It is intended to support review, not replace it. ↑ section
What are the four assurance claims I should verify for GRI 2-2?
The page says there are four assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence prompt. Use those prompts to check that the disclosure is supported before it goes to review. ↑ section
What common mistakes does the GRI 2-2 page warn me to avoid?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is worth checking your draft against that list before sign-off. In practice, use it as a final quality-control step to catch missing scope notes, weak methodology or incomplete evidence. ↑ section
How can I use the synthetic example disclosures for GRI 2-2 without copying them into my report?
The examples are synthetic and are there to show how a finished disclosure might look, including a quantitative table where relevant. Use them as a drafting reference only, and make sure any numbers in your own report are internally consistent. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- What is the plain-language explanation of GRI 2-2 on this page?
- How do I turn the GRI 2-2 data points into a first draft?
- What should go into the GRI 2-2 evidence pack for assurance?
- How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 2-2?
- What is in the printable Library Card PDF for GRI 2-2?
- Where can I find real company report examples for GRI 2-2 on the page?
- How do I write the narrative starter for a GRI 2-2 draft?
- What visualisation ideas does the page suggest for GRI 2-2?
- How do I build the GRI content-index line for GRI 2-2?
- What methodology notes should I keep for GRI 2-2 boundary changes?
- How do I check whether my GRI 2-2 draft is assurance-ready?
- What are the most common GRI 2-2 reporting gaps to check before submission?
✓ 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.
