GRI 304: Biodiversity 2016 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 304-4
IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with habitats in areas affected by operations
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
2 datapoints ↓
4 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to report how many species linked to its sites or activities are recognised as threatened or otherwise conservation-priority species, using the relevant national conservation list and the IUCN Red List. The focus is on species whose habitats are in areas affected by the organisation’s operations, so the organisation is not just describing biodiversity in general, but the species that may be present where it actually operates.
In practice, the key question is coverage: does the organisation look across all relevant operations and affected areas, or only a few flagship sites? The report should make clear the scope used, the locations considered, and the count of listed species associated with habitats in those affected areas, so readers can understand the breadth of the assessment rather than assuming it covers every site automatically.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extinction risk level | Capture the stated risk level used for the species or habitat item, using the organisation’s chosen classification consistently and without changing the category meaning. | Source note or register entry showing the risk classification and the basis used to assign it. | Environment / biodiversity |
| Species count in affected areas | Count all listed species with habitats in areas touched by the organisation’s operations, covering both global red-list species and species on the relevant national conservation list, and report the total as a single number. | Biodiversity survey, habitat mapping, species register and the working tally used to build the final count. | Environment / biodiversity |
Show GRI 304-4 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- State the extinction-risk level for the species concerned.
- Count all Red List and nationally protected species whose habitats lie in areas affected by the organisation’s operations.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which parts of the business, sites, and activities are in scope for this disclosure, so you are counting against one clear operational picture.
- Agree the classification rules before you start counting: define how you will identify species records that belong in the disclosure, including the conservation-status information you will use to support the assessment.
- Gather the underlying evidence for each included location: keep the source records that show which species are present in habitats affected by the organisation’s activities and how their status was determined.
- Compile the output in two parts: record the status-based narrative for the extinction-risk item, and calculate the total count of relevant species from the included evidence, making sure the number is internally consistent.
- Note any exclusions, boundary changes, or methodology updates clearly, so a reviewer can see what was left out and whether the approach changed from the previous reporting period.
- Check the final disclosure against the official source material before sign-off: confirm the wording, scope, and figures match the underlying evidence and that nothing required has been missed.
Request biodiversity impact data from site and project owners
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which sites or projects overlap with protected species records, and how many species have been identified in those affected areas?
Use your organisation’s own site, project and biodiversity terms first, then map them to the reporting question. Keep the ask in operational language rather than framework wording, and check the source material before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 304-4 evidence for species in affected areas and the total count of IUCN Red List and national list species.
Why it fails: This uses framework language that many operational teams will not use day to day, so it is easy to misunderstand what to pull. It also does not say which sites, systems, time period or counting basis to use, so the response may be incomplete or inconsistent.
Better request
Please send the latest biodiversity records for [period] covering [sites/projects/boundary], showing the species category used in your team’s records, the locations where each species was found, and the unique count of species linked to areas disturbed by our work. Include the source file/system, cut-off date, and any exclusions or duplicates removed. Use your own terms first, then I’ll map them to the reporting question.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for biodiversity species data for reporting Hi [name], I’m pulling together the year-end sustainability data and need your help with the biodiversity records for [reporting period]. Please send me the latest approved information for [sites/projects/boundary], covering: - the species status or conservation category used in your records; - the sites, projects or work areas where those species were recorded; - the count of unique species linked to areas affected by our operations; - the source document or system for each record; - any assumptions, exclusions or duplicates removed. Please use your team’s usual terms in the response, and I’ll map them to the reporting question. If anything is unclear, I can help align the scope. Could you send this by [date]? Please also include the person who can confirm the data before we close the pack. Thanks, [Your name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you share the latest biodiversity/species records for [period] across [sites/projects]? I need the species category used locally, where each record sits, the unique count, source file/system, and any exclusions/duplicates. Please use your own terms and I’ll map them. Needed by [date]. Thanks.
Industry examples
Construction / Infrastructure
Context. A project team manages earthworks, drainage and temporary compounds across several active sites.
Adapted request. Please share the ecology register and survey summary for [period] across [project names], showing the protected or listed species recorded in the work footprint, the unique species count, and the source reports used. Include any temporary works areas, buffer zones, exclusions and duplicate removals.
Example response. We reviewed 4 active sites and 2 temporary compounds. The records show 7 unique species linked to disturbed areas: 3 locally protected species, 2 nationally listed species and 2 species appearing in both survey sets but counted once each. Sources: baseline ecology report v3, monthly site walkover logs and GIS habitat layer. No desktop-only records included.
Utilities / Energy
Context. An asset operations team manages substations, access tracks and maintenance corridors near sensitive habitats.
Adapted request. Please provide the biodiversity incident and survey records for [period] across [asset list], including any listed species found within maintenance corridors, access routes or other operational areas. Return the local species category, the asset location, the unique species count and the source record for each entry.
Example response. For the reporting year, 5 assets overlapped with sensitive habitat records. We identified 4 unique species in operational areas: 1 red-listed species, 2 nationally protected species and 1 species recorded in both the contractor survey and internal habitat map, counted once. Sources: annual ecology survey, asset GIS layer and contractor field notes.
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 species lists were used, how habitats were matched to operational areas, and how each species was counted so the total is based on one consistent approach.
Context note
Set out what the figures show about the species linked to habitats in areas influenced by the organisation’s activities, including how the risk mix helps readers understand the level of ecological sensitivity.
Fluctuation statement
If the numbers change from one period to the next, describe whether that is due to updated species assessments, changes in the areas covered, or improved habitat mapping rather than a real shift in the underlying ecology.
Content index entry
GRI 304-4 IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with habitats in areas affected by operations — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 304-4. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We prepared the coverage figure by using the same internal boundary and cut-off rules across the reporting period, so the number reflects the disclosed operations we actually reviewed rather than a one-off estimate. | An assurer may probe whether the boundary was applied consistently, whether any sites or activities were excluded without a clear reason, and whether the figure could be distorted by changing the scope late in the process. | Boundary memo or reporting methodology; list of included and excluded operations; version history showing scope decisions; working papers linking the figure to source records; management sign-off on the final boundary. |
| We based the figure on source records that we considered sufficiently reliable for reporting, and we kept the underlying evidence so the calculation can be traced back and re-performed. | An assurer may test whether the data were complete, current and traceable, whether manual adjustments were supported, and whether the calculation could be reproduced from the retained records. | Source datasets; calculation workbook; audit trail or data lineage notes; evidence of checks on completeness and accuracy; retained supporting documents for any estimates or adjustments; reviewer sign-off before publication. |
| The reporting boundary used for this disclosure is documented. | Coverage exclusions or late scope changes are not evidenced. | Boundary memo, entity or site list, and sign-off record. |
| The source data reconciles to the working file used for reporting. | Figures or statements are copied into the disclosure without a traceable source. | Source-system export, calculation workbook, and reconciliation note. |
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
- Figures are stated without the supporting narrative, or narrative without figures.
- Scope is inconsistent between the text and the numbers.
- The reporting boundary is left undefined.
- Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
- Estimates and measured values are not distinguished.
- Source records for the figures are not identified.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong owner asked
The team chases the ecology lead or a site manager when the count and risk status sit with a different data owner, so the first request goes to the wrong desk.
- Framework language used
People ask for the information using disclosure jargon instead of the organisation’s own site, asset, or species-tracking terms, and the request is misunderstood or routed badly.
- Scope left vague
The collector never pins down which parts of the business, sites, or project areas are in scope, so some affected locations are left out and others are pulled in by mistake.
- Timing basis not fixed
The team does not agree which reporting period or cut-off date to use, so records from different dates are mixed together and the final set is not comparable.
- Counting basis mixed
One person counts individual records while another counts species groups or site occurrences, and the numbers are merged even though they are built on different bases.
- Source labels stripped
Original tags from the field survey, conservation register, or internal tracker are removed, so later reviewers cannot tell which record came from which source.
- Separate populations merged
Records for distinct populations or locations are rolled into one line even though they should stay separate for the internal count and risk review.
- Evidence trail missing
The file is saved without the supporting note, date stamp, or reviewer sign-off, so nobody can trace how the figures were assembled or approved.
Where judgement is often needed
- Defining the operational footprint after a buy-in or sale
Use the reporting boundary that reflects the period’s owned or controlled sites, and explain any step change where a purchase or disposal alters which locations are in scope.
- Reconciling different protected-species lists across countries
Apply the local conservation list used in each country alongside the global risk list, and state which list was used where the same species appears under different names or categories.
- Deciding whether a nearby population is close enough to count
Set out the practical rule used to link a species’ habitat to an affected site, and explain any judgement where the habitat sits on the edge of the area influenced by operations.
- Choosing the date for the species check
Pick one consistent cut-off date for the year, describe it clearly, and note if later surveys or updated registers changed the picture after that date.
- Using survey results versus best estimates
Prefer direct field evidence where available, but if you rely on estimates or desk-based screening, say so and explain the basis used to turn that into the count.
- Handling species recorded at more than one site
Count each species once in the total if that is how your method is set up, or explain any site-by-site counting approach so readers can see how duplicates were avoided or retained.
- Treating uncertain identifications and borderline records
State whether you included only confirmed records or also credible but unverified sightings, and explain the threshold used for accepting a record into the tally.
- Rounding the final count
If the number is derived from a calculation or estimate, disclose the rounding rule used and make sure the published figure still matches the underlying method.
- Protecting sensitive location information
Aggregate or generalise site details where disclosure could expose vulnerable habitats, and explain the level of grouping used so the count remains understandable without revealing exact locations.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Coastal utilities · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows how to describe the species count and the assessed seriousness of extinction pressure in plain language, without using the standard’s wording.
Synthetic example for illustration only. We reviewed the land and water areas linked to our operations and identified the species of conservation concern that may be affected there.
- The habitats connected to our sites overlap with 18 species on the global threatened-species register and 7 species on national protection lists, giving 25 species in total.
- Based on the latest screening, the exposure is high for 4 of those species, medium for 9, and low for 12.
Agri-food processing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example demonstrates a concise narrative disclosure that covers both the species total and the level of extinction risk using internally consistent figures.
Synthetic example for illustration only. We mapped the areas influenced by our facilities and checked which protected species have habitat there.
- We found 11 species from the global threatened list and 5 species from national conservation lists, so the combined total is 16 species.
- Our assessment classifies the extinction pressure as high for 2 species, medium for 6, and low for 8.
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
- Risk profile of affected species — table: A list of the species groups or named species recorded in areas touched by operations, alongside their assessed risk level.
- Species counts by risk level — bar: How many recorded species fall into each risk category, using the same set of species affected by operations.
- Conservation status split — stacked bar: The mix of species from the global threatened list and the national conservation list among species linked to operational areas.
- Species at risk in operational areas — map: Where the affected habitats are located and how the species linked to those places are distributed geographically.
- Overall affected species total — donut: The share of the total species count represented by each risk category or list type, based on the species connected to operational areas.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We identified 12 protected species with habitats in our operational areas.
Better
We identified 12 protected species with habitats in our operational areas, and 4 were at high extinction risk.
Best
Across our sites this year, we identified 12 protected species with habitats in areas affected by our operations, including 4 at high extinction risk; the count was unchanged from last year because our site footprint did not expand.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 304-4 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL | Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Brazil | 2024 | Partial | p. 12 →p. 184 →p. 185 → | Integrated Report 2024 → | ey | |||||||||
Evidence in Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL’s reportWhat the report shows Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL’s 2024 Integrated Report includes coverage of its risk management process and environmental studies conducted prior to new project implementation (p.180), as well as quantitative data on total water withdrawn and consumed, including percentages in regions with high or extremely high baseline water stress (p.316). The report also references risk management frameworks and governance structures related to risk appetite and ongoing monitoring (pp.102, 104). However, the evidence map does not clarify the extent of disclosure on specific environmental impact metrics beyond water use or detailed outcomes of the risk management processes.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
Snam S.p.A. | Gas Utilities · Italy | 2025 | Partial | p. 488 →p. 489 →p. 348 → | Annual Report 2025 → | Deloitte | |||||||||
Evidence in Snam S.p.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Snam S.p.A.'s 2025 Annual Report provides a percentage value related to the proportion of assets at material physical risk addressed by climate factors on page 319. The report also quantifies the number of areas affected by the company's activities that include species from the national preservation list, with a count of 135 noted on page 348. However, while the report discusses the context of physical risks and the risk management framework (pages 314 and 330), it does not clearly specify the overall scope or detailed outcomes of these risk assessments, leaving some aspects of the disclosure 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
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
LIXIL Corporation | Building Products · Japan | 2025 | Exact | p. 222 →p. 153 →p. 55 → | LIXIL's Impact (as of November 25, 2025) → | EY; BSI | |||||||||
Evidence in LIXIL Corporation’s reportWhat the report shows LIXIL Corporation’s 2025 sustainability report includes coverage of metrics and targets related to climate and nature risk management, as noted on page 87 where the company states it sets targets and manages metrics to evaluate these risks. Additionally, on page 179, the report provides quantitative data on responsible procurement survey results and related KPIs for fiscal years 2023 to 2025. However, the report does not clearly detail specific targets or outcomes beyond these mentions, and the extent of disclosure on other related metrics or their progress 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
|
||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A site team has mapped a new quarry extension and found two protected bird species and one plant species using habitat inside the footprint and nearby buffer area. The ecology note also records that one bird is classed as high risk on a global conservation list, while the other two are on the national protected species register.How should the preparer decide what to include in the disclosure for this site?
Model answer. Treat the species as in scope if their habitat is in an area affected by the organisation’s operations, then count them in the total and separately note the level of extinction risk for each species using the evidence on hand. The count should cover both the globally listed species and the nationally listed species, provided they meet the habitat-and-impact test.
Why this matters. Include species only when their habitat sits in an area influenced by operations, and keep the count aligned to that scope.
An operations manager sends a list of six species seen on land near a warehouse, but the ecology consultant says only four have habitat within the land actually disturbed by the works; the other two are outside the affected zone. The preparer is unsure whether to use the full six or the smaller four.Which number belongs in the disclosure, and why?
Model answer. Use the smaller number, because the disclosure is about species whose habitat is in areas affected by the organisation’s operations, not every species observed in the wider vicinity. The total should therefore reflect only the four that meet the location-and-impact test.
Why this matters. Do not count nearby species unless their habitat is within the area affected by operations.
A business unit has one species on the global threatened-species list and two species on a national conservation list, but one of the national-list species is found only in an undisturbed reserve beyond the project boundary. The team has already drafted a table with all three species in the total.What should the preparer check before finalising the table?
Model answer. Check whether each species actually has habitat in an area affected by the organisation’s operations. If the reserve species is outside the affected area, it should not be included in the total, even if it appears on a conservation list.
Why this matters. Listing status alone is not enough; the habitat must also be in an affected area.
The ecology file shows three species with different risk levels: one is high risk, one is lower risk, and one has not yet been assessed on the global list but is on the national conservation list. The reporting team wants to show only the total count and leave out the risk detail.What additional information should the preparer make sure is captured?
Model answer. Capture the level of extinction risk for the species in scope, alongside the total number of species. The risk detail helps explain the nature of the species affected, while the count shows how many there are.
Why this matters. Report both the number of in-scope species and the risk level information available for them.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 304-4 — 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 E4
Biodiversity and Ecosystems — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
For GRI 304-4, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?
The page says to prepare two datapoints: extinction risk level and species count in affected areas. Use those as the starting point for your data request and check that the figures are tied to the scope you plan to report. ↑ section
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 304-4?
Use it as a working checklist to move from scoping to data collection, then to drafting and assurance readiness. The page is designed to help you organise the disclosure rather than just describe it. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 304-4 biodiversity data in practice?
The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the person or team that can source, explain and evidence the biodiversity data. The key is to assign someone who can coordinate the datapoints, methodology and supporting evidence. ↑ section
What should I include in the evidence pack for GRI 304-4 assurance readiness?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness. Use it to assemble the documents and records that back up the datapoints, methodology and claims before the disclosure is reviewed. ↑ section
What are the four assurance claims I need to check for GRI 304-4?
The page says there are four assurance claims to verify, covering claim, risk and evidence. Use them to test whether the draft is supported and whether the evidence pack is strong enough for review. ↑ section
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes for GRI 304-4 biodiversity reporting?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes to help you spot weak points before you finalise the disclosure. Use that section as a pre-submission check so you can tighten scope, data support and wording. ↑ section
How can I turn the GRI 304-4 data into a draft disclosure?
The page includes draft-output support with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. That gives you a practical route from raw data to a first draft that can be reviewed internally. ↑ section
How do I use the GRI 304-4 workbook download?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. Use it to organise preparation and assurance tasks, and pair it with the printable Library Card if you want a quick reference copy. ↑ section
What is the printable Library Card for GRI 304-4 used for?
The printable Library Card is a PDF in the Download Centre. It is there as a handy reference alongside the workbook, so you can keep the key preparation and assurance points close at hand. ↑ section
Can I reuse GRI 304-4 biodiversity data for ESRS E4 reporting?
The page notes ESRS E4 (Biodiversity and Ecosystems) as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across both. Treat that as a practical cross-reference, but still check the specific reporting needs for each framework. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- What does the plain-language explainer on GRI 304-4 help me understand before I collect data?
- How should I scope the species count in affected areas for GRI 304-4?
- How do I define and document extinction risk level for this disclosure?
- What evidence should I keep to support the biodiversity datapoints in GRI 304-4?
- How do I use the synthetic example disclosure to draft my own GRI 304-4 wording?
- What kind of visualisation ideas does the draft-output section suggest for GRI 304-4?
- Where can I find real company report examples for GRI 304-4 biodiversity disclosure?
- How do I use the GRI 304-4 content-index line in a draft report?
- What are the main mistakes to avoid when preparing GRI 304-4 biodiversity disclosure?
- How do I make the GRI 304-4 disclosure assurance-ready before review?
- What should I ask the data owner for when collecting GRI 304-4 biodiversity information?
- How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook to track GRI 304-4 tasks?
✓ 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.
